Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Good Friday Agreement

Richard Burden: If he will make a statement on the steps he has taken to secure the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement.

John Reid: The British Government remain wholly committed to the full implementation of the Belfast agreement. We must now build on the considerable progress that we have made in recent weeks and concentrate on stabilising the institutions and moving ahead with all the remaining aspects of the agreement.

Richard Burden: I welcome the achievements of recent weeks and my right hon. Friend's contribution to those achievements. Given that a number of paramilitary groups, including loyalist paramilitary groups, are still not on ceasefire, how realistic is it to aim to achieve full decommissioning by February? What can be done to ensure that General de Chastelain can continue his work so that we can keep in place the legal framework for decommissioning?

John Reid: It is true, of course, that General de Chastelain, whom I met on Monday this week, has made a considerable contribution through his calm endurance. I am sure that the entire House would wish to thank him for his contribution. We welcome the progress that has been made, including the historic and significant step by the IRA, but my hon. Friend is right to say that there is a long way to go. Some loyalists have not started the process of decommissioning and are not even on ceasefire, so it is extremely unlikely that the process can be completed by February. Of course, the remit of General de Chastelain does not expire then. It is a continual remit, at the behest of the two Governments, but we need the legal framework that allows decommissioning to take place, and in the very near future we will bring before the House legislation to enable that to happen.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Secretary of State will be aware of the offence caused to many in the community in Northern Ireland by the decision to haul down the Union flag from police stations, the decision to remove the royal title and the crown insignia from the Royal Ulster Constabulary—the only constabulary in the United Kingdom that will not have the crown in its badge—and the proposal to remove the royal coat of arms from our courtrooms. The Secretary of State recently said that there was a danger that Northern Ireland would become a "cold house for Unionists". What does he propose to do about that?

John Reid: As the hon. Gentleman supported the Belfast agreement, I take it that he read it before he agreed to it. It states:
	"All participants—
	which I take to include him—
	"acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division."
	I take it that the hon. Gentleman still accepts the agreement. Nevertheless, I recognise and I have made plain that the matter must be treated with a degree of sensitivity and a recognition of the rights not only of the Catholics and those who feel culturally Irish in Northern Ireland, but of the Protestants and those who feel British.
	I commend to the hon. Gentleman the leader in the Belfast Newsletter this morning, which comments:
	"If northern Catholics are treated as equal citizens, and their culture and identity are adequately recognised within 'the northern state'—in short, if they feel at home here—what good motive other than romantic aspiration could they have for embarking on the highly risky road towards a united Ireland?"
	In other words, through mutual respect and sensitivity on the matter of symbols, we are trying to create the conditions that the hon. Gentleman wants to see created—a continuation in Northern Ireland on the basis of consent. I recognise the sensitivity that he highlights. I hope that he will try to recognise and reflect upon the points that I am making.

Helen Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on securing a good vote in his party on Saturday? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the re-establishment of the political institutions in Northern Ireland, particularly the north- south consultation bodies, can offer tangible benefits to people in Northern Ireland on the economic, social and cultural fronts?

John Reid: Yes, indeed. I think that my hon. Friend is right. Obviously, we congratulate the First Minister of Northern Ireland, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, on the vote that he received at the weekend. It is in all our interests that we get a degree of stability in Northern Ireland. That stability has, to say the least, been somewhat lacking in the institutions in the past six to nine months. It is important not least because there is widespread support throughout the community for the good work that the Assembly and the Executive already have done and can do. Devolution of power is not only an essential part of the Belfast agreement, but the vehicle through which an all-Ireland dimension can be given with tangible benefits for the whole community. That includes both traditions and all citizens in Northern Ireland, and the recognition of that all-Ireland dimension, which is an essential part of the Belfast agreement.

Ian Paisley: It will come as no surprise to the people of Northern Ireland that this decommissioning date is not going to be kept rigid and that it will probably be changed and changed again. That will not cause any ripples for the people of Northern Ireland, for they expected it to happen. As the Secretary of State has mentioned that he wants to see stability, can I ask him whether he has seen the campaign literature just issued by Sinn Fein against the Police Service of Northern Ireland, linking it with plastic bullets, shoot to kill, abuse of human rights, sectarian intimidation, collusion, obstruction of inquiries and torture? Will he condemn that sort of literature, which is put around the doors, but breaks the legislation on such literature, as it carries no printer's name or imprint?

John Reid: Yes, I condemn that sort of literature absolutely. I have no doubt that, as in any other human organisation, there have been faults and mistakes and perhaps wrongs. I think that that happens in all police forces, but I have to say that, given the terrible conditions in which the RUC had to work—on many occasions, the Police Service of Northern Ireland still has to work in such conditions—the police have been stalwart defenders not only of law and order and peace in Northern Ireland, but, on many occasions, of the Catholic communities themselves. I hope that those who have been asking for many years for the right to participate fully in institutions and in the Police Service of Northern Ireland will, now that we have implemented Patten, face up to the responsibilities that always come with rights and participate as they should do, not least because all communities in Northern Ireland deserve a decent, good and effective police service.

Harry Barnes: When military de-escalation takes place in Northern Ireland in response to the Provisional IRA starting to put arms beyond use—there may be more moves on the issue in future—what account will be taken of the growing threat that exists from the Real IRA and loyalist paramilitary groups?

John Reid: Any moves that I make regarding the military presence in Northern Ireland are made with full consultation and on the advice of my security advisers, who include the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, part of that consideration is, by imperative, the threat from the dissident republican groups. It is a great irony that that threat is one of the most major stumbling blocks to the removal of the presence that is manifested by the British Army, to which the nationalist and republican communities constantly object. They should look towards the real reason why we must have a more than normal military presence, which is not the will of this House, but the threat from the dissident republicans.

Quentin Davies: Is it true, as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor says in a magazine article today, that the Government are planning a new raft of concessions in Northern Ireland? The article refers to
	"an amnesty for former terrorists on the run . . . the dismantling of British security facilities . . . further inquiries into past British security 'misdeeds'"—
	there is, of course, no mention of anybody else's misdeeds—
	"and further changes to the new police service, the successor to the RUC, on top of those reforms already agreed to make the police acceptable to nationalists and Republicans."
	If there is any truth in that statement by the Secretary of State's predecessor, will he come clean to the House and say when he proposes to bring the measures before it and to explain their justification?

John Reid: It is not true that new measures are being contemplated apart from those that have already been put before the public and the House in Weston Park. I would do my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) a disservice if I did not point out that he did not suggest that the measures were new. He said that they had already been undertaken.

Quentin Davies: The Secretary of State has obviously not read his colleague's article, which refers to new concessions. Will he learn lessons from the serious mistakes of his two predecessors in releasing all prisoners before the IRA had made any progress on decommissioning? Does he accept that, as I put it to him and the House on 24 October at column 305, it would be sensible to make no more concessions until it is clear what final package will be required to bring about full decommissioning?

John Reid: First, I confess to the hon. Gentleman that GQ does not feature in my midnight reading. I commend him on finding the time to read such magazines; I hope that the rest of it is as interesting as the article to which he referred. My understanding is that my right hon. Friend referred to events that occurred after he was Secretary of State. I commend him on his performance as Secretary of State, but the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) asked today whether new measures would be taken. I replied no, other than those we have debated previously. [Interruption.] Well, the hon. Gentleman told me that he raised the point at the last Northern Ireland questions. He could hardly have done that if the matter had not been discussed in the Chamber. He referred to concessions. I repeat that I do not regard the extension of human rights, parity of esteem, and equality of all individuals as concessions.

Electoral Fraud

Stephen Hesford: What steps are being taken by the Government to tackle electoral fraud; and if he will make a statement.

Des Browne: The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill, will provide the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland with additional powers to address the problem of electoral fraud there. The proposed measures will tackle electoral abuse effectively without disadvantaging honest voters.

Stephen Hesford: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. We are considering a key battle in the normalisation of civil society in the Province. Will my hon. Friend say a little more about multiple electoral registrations and what the Government are doing to make progress on that?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend is right to acknowledge the importance of combating electoral fraud in Northern Ireland to the stability of the political institutions there. On multiple registration, he will recollect that, on Third Reading, I undertook to consider whether there should be a requirement in Northern Ireland for those seeking to register to advise the chief electoral officer whether they were already registered or had tried to register at another address. I can now confirm that I intend to give the chief electoral officer powers to ask those questions during the canvass, starting in autumn 2002. Any person who knowingly gives a false answer to that question will be liable for a fine of up to £1,000.

Martin Smyth: Successive Governments have made a meal out of tackling electoral fraud. Has the Minister noticed that the Republic of Ireland is considering electronic voting in three counties to avoid fraud? Is not it time to deal with issues at that level, apart from pre-registration? Will he assure us that the chief electoral officer has full authority to change the method of voting?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman has made consistent and important contributions to the debate, for which I thank him. He will recollect that, on Second Reading, there was a discussion about our aspiration to move towards electronic voting. However, all parties, including the Ulster Unionist party, agreed that the objective should be to put in place measures that would interdict the sort of fraud that had been identified and suspected. That is my priority, but it does not alter the fact that my long-term objective is to move towards electronic voting, which will help to tackle fraud.
	In answer to the hon. Gentleman's final point, he can rest assured that the chief electoral officer has all the powers, support and assistance that he needs to address this issue. In addition, I have started holding a series of regular meetings with him to ensure that I am kept up to date with progress on addressing the issue of electoral fraud.

Eddie McGrady: Does the Minister agree that the improvements contained in the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill will do much to eradicate electoral fraud in Northern Ireland? Does he also agree that the proliferation of electoral fraud could jeopardise the democratic process there? Above all, does he agree that one of the outstanding remaining ways of tackling such fraud would be to introduce proportional representation for elections in Northern Ireland? As the House knows, we use proportional representation for local government elections and European elections, so why not use it for the elections to this House?

Des Browne: I agree with two thirds of the hon. Gentleman's observations. First, he is perfectly correct to recognise the importance of the Bill as a measure for tackling electoral fraud. Secondly, it is important to reinforce the view that I expressed earlier that the stability of the political institutions of Northern Ireland is to a large degree dependent on the confidence that people have in their votes. The issue of proportional representation—other than in the circumstances in which it is already exercised in Northern Ireland—is reflected in a recommendation in the draft Bill of Rights by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should direct his contributions on that debate to the commission in the first instance.

Hugo Swire: How can the Government's commitment to tackling electoral fraud in Northern Ireland be taken seriously when every party in the House but their own has argued for the inclusion of national insurance numbers on the electoral register?

Des Browne: I think that the hon. Gentleman was present for the final stages of the Bill, although he might not have been. He will, however, recollect that there was cross-party support for the use of national insurance numbers as an identifier. He will also recollect that I opposed those proposals because I considered that they were disproportionate, that they made unreasonable demands on voters, and that they were opposed by the chief electoral officer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are being very noisy. The House must come to order.

Des Browne: I also opposed the proposals because data protection implications were involved. The hon. Gentleman will also recollect that I undertook to reflect on the issue, and I have continued to do so. I continue to have discussions with the chief electoral officer, and I have had interesting discussions with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on these matters. I am still in reflective mode on them, but as soon as I come out of reflective mode, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets to know of my decision.

Organised Crime

John McFall: What recent initiatives the Government have taken to tackle organised crime in Northern Ireland.

Helen Jones: What recent progress has been made in the fight against organised crime in Northern Ireland.

Jane Kennedy: I chair the organised crime taskforce, which has been in operation for just over a year. There have been a number of successes: on 8 November this year, 42.5 million cigarettes were seized at Warrenpoint harbour—the largest ever such seizure in the United Kingdom. In September, 26,000 litres of illicit liquor were recovered in Coalisland. Only this morning, a series of multi-agency operations in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland has been carried out to tackle fuel smuggling, fuel laundering and associated money laundering. Customs, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and agencies in the Republic of Ireland have searched 31 premises, 10 people are assisting those agencies with their inquiries, and the investigation is on-going. This is exactly the type of multi-agency operation that the Government wish to see.

John McFall: Alongside the welcome peace initiatives taking place in Northern Ireland lies an increase in criminal activities involving drugs, alcohol and counterfeit goods. As the Minister knows, the profits from those activities go to terrorist organisations as well as lining the pockets of criminals. What is the organised crime taskforce doing to eliminate such activities, particularly at this sensitive time around Christmas, when many people are out shopping, and organisations such as the Co-op and other retailers are very concerned about counterfeit goods?

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend, who is a long-time supporter of the co-operative movement, knows very well how the sale of counterfeit or adulterated goods undermines legitimate traders. Only last week Sir Reg Empey, the Northern Ireland Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and I went on a shopping trip in Belfast city centre as part of a joint effort to publicise the need to tackle the sale of counterfeit goods. That is a good and practical example of the way in which everyone can play a role in fighting organised crime.
	My hon. Friend is right, and members of the public should take note of the message: do not line the pockets of criminals this Christmas.

Helen Jones: In the context of tobacco and alcohol smuggling, what is my hon. Friend doing to make people aware that when they think they are getting a cheap bargain on the doorstep, they are actually putting money straight into the coffers of criminals and terrorists? In particular, will she ensure that communities such as mine which have experienced terrorist attacks in the past are made clearly aware that they should not be funding those who want to perpetrate similar atrocities elsewhere?

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Shoppers in Warrington ought to be aware of an element of organised crime in Northern Ireland that has direct links with paramilitary organisations. They ought to be aware that when they buy cheap cigarettes and alcohol, and other counterfeit goods, they are providing funds for organisations that go out of their way to seek to kill, to maim and to lay the bombs that we saw in Ealing and Birmingham very recently.

Nigel Dodds: Does the Minister accept that one reason for the difficulty in tackling organised crime is the rundown of police numbers in Northern Ireland? While the numbers are on the increase elsewhere, in Northern Ireland the number of regular police officers is being reduced. Will the Minister give an undertaking that the full-time reserve in Northern Ireland will be maintained? Will she also give an undertaking that measures aimed at demoralising the police will be reversed? I refer to the issue of the name, the symbols, and the flying of the Union flag at police stations.

Jane Kennedy: My overriding concern is to ensure that the Police Service has all the resources it needs, and that Government continue to be guided by the Chief Constable's assessment of his resourcing requirements. As the hon. Gentleman knows, decisions on the full-time reserve will be made next year, in the light of the security situation prevailing at the time. I can say no more at this stage.

Patsy Calton: Does the Minister agree that the best way to reduce organised crime in Northern Ireland is for all political parties to participate in the new policing board? That would replace vigilante activity with legitimate policing. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must be heard.

Patsy Calton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I had finished. Would you like me to repeat the question?

Mr. Speaker: No, it is all right.

Jane Kennedy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) on her appointment to the Liberal Democrats' Front Bench. It is a pleasure to be joined by another lady.
	The hon. Lady asked about political support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. She is absolutely right. It is important for the establishment of the service to be recognised for the watershed that it was. It was supported by the Catholic Church, the nationalist community and the Social Democratic and Labour party, and it marked an historic moment. The police deserve the support of everyone in the Northern Ireland community, as we take up the fight against organised crime and the associated links with paramilitary organisations.

Peter Mandelson: I commend the Minister on her public statements in support of the Northern Ireland police during recent civil disturbances, in which 800 police officers have been injured since June. May I press her, however, on the subject of the full-time reserve? Will she comment on the fact that the reserve supplies a significant proportion of the active police manpower in Northern Ireland, amounting in certain districts to a quarter of those available for active duty? Does she accept the view of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary that, in view of the situation, the full-time reserve needs to be retained in existence for at least the next three years?

Jane Kennedy: My right hon. Friend knows certainly better than I do the issues facing the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the enormous changes that it has been undergoing to win the support of all the community in Northern Ireland. I hope that he will be encouraged when I tell him that we have been able to recruit 66 per cent. more recruits than had been envisaged. We are making every effort, and we stay in constant touch with the Chief Constable to ensure that he has the resources that he needs to police Northern Ireland as we expect it to be done.

Crispin Blunt: What an extraordinary coincidence that, two weeks ago, six of the 27 questions tabled by Labour Back Benchers happened to be on organised crime and that, this morning, we had an announcement on a successful operation against organised crime. Although the Government lost the benefit of doubt on coincidence long ago, we must welcome that operational success. However, will the Minister take it from me, and confirm, that fuel smuggling in South Armagh is an industrial-scale racket that is worth hundreds of millions of pounds; and that, in an area where police cannot operate without Army protection, Customs and Excise must be able to operate with all the assistance of the Army and police in dealing with an appalling threat that provides funds to future terrorism in Northern Ireland?

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman has demeaned himself in the way in which he asked that question. The Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Customs and Excise officers who were involved even in today's operation daily risk their lives in the work that they undertake, and they deserve our full support.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Ian Gibson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 December.

Tony Blair: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.

Ian Gibson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, although there are indeed good news stories in our health service, we have much to do to raise the morale of workers in that service. Will he ensure that the national health service remains just that—national; that it continues to deliver health care free at the point where it is needed; and that it is funded from our taxes and not according to ideas of private health insurance which have been described as aggressive and inequitable?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the many achievements in the national health service, not least the new, 953-bed Norfolk and Norwich hospital in his constituency, which is part of the largest hospital-building programme since the national health service began. He is also absolutely right to say that we want to get more resources into the national health service, and that we want to retain and not abandon the principle of the national health service being free at the point of use—whereas Conservative Members want to abandon it.

Iain Duncan Smith: The very serious claims made by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards are rightly matters for the House to investigate. As leader of the largest party in the House, will the Prime Minister back our call for a full inquiry?

Tony Blair: No, I think that the matter should be dealt with by the House in the proper way. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you will make a statement on it at 3.30 pm. I think that it is best left to the House authorities.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Parliamentary Commissioner also makes some quite specific allegations to which I draw the Prime Minister's attention. She said that there were
	"whispering campaigns and hostile press briefings . . . executed by named civil servants".
	As civil servants are clearly a Government responsibility, will the Prime Minister perhaps undertake to investigate that specific allegation?

Tony Blair: Of course if named civil servants were alleged to have done something improper it would be the Government's responsibility, and of course I would look into it, but I am not aware of any such specific, named allegations. If the right hon. Gentleman is aware of named individuals who have, it is suggested, briefed against the Commissioner in some way, perhaps he will now state who they are.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister is just as aware as I am from the letter that I am sure he has also seen. He knows very well, just as much as I do, that we all in this House have a responsibility to ensure that our proceedings and the way we behave are above reproach. I simply ask the Prime Minister to ensure that he investigates those elements for which he is responsible. Will he undertake to do that?

Tony Blair: I am not aware that the letter names individual people. If it does, I will certainly look at it, but I thought that it did not. It is difficult to investigate allegations against unnamed people. My understanding is that the matter is dealt with by the House of Commons Commission, and it should be dealt with by the House of Commons Commission, which has on it some people from the right hon. Gentleman's party. If there are issues they want to raise, they should be raised in that way, but this is a matter for the House and the House has the absolute power to do whatever it wishes in respect of it.

Paddy Tipping: Will the Prime Minister welcome and give details of this lunchtime's agreement in Bonn, which paves the way for future stable government in Afghanistan? Will he also outline the further measures he intends to take to take the process forward?

Tony Blair: It is a remarkable achievement in Bonn. When we think that a few weeks ago, when we embarked on the action in Afghanistan, people worried whether that action would be successful militarily and whether what would take the place of the Taliban regime would be worse, or indifferent to, for example, the appalling oppression of women in Afghanistan, it is clear that what has happened today is remarkable in the sense that people have come together from all ethnic groupings in Afghanistan, agreed to the provisional Government and to a process that will increase dramatically the democracy, justice and basic representation of the people in Afghanistan. I hope that those people who had doubts about the wisdom of the action that we are undertaking will look at what has been achieved and see that the future is bright not simply for the war against international terrorism but—not before it is due—for the people of Afghanistan.

Charles Kennedy: To return to the issue of the national health service and the question that I raised with the Prime Minister this time last week, can he for once and all simply clarify for all of us whether it is the policy of his Government to raise NHS spending to the European Union average by 2005, or does that now become an aspiration in the broadest terms, as he sought to describe it on Sunday?

Tony Blair: Not merely do we stand by that, but it is in our manifesto that we will raise spending to the EU average. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the real issue is whether the health service needs more money in it. We say yes. We also say that it should be provided to the NHS and I think that all other political parties that want to engage in this debate should now state what their position is.

Charles Kennedy: The position is very clear and widely recognised by all parties. Of course, the health service requires more support, but how does the Prime Minister explain the evidence that the Chancellor's Treasury officials gave yesterday to the Treasury Select Committee? Since the Prime Minister is asking questions, I shall tell him what they said. First, they had no idea what the current level of health expenditure in the European Union is; secondly, they did not know what it would cost in 2005; and thirdly, they did not know how much it would cost to match it. If that is the case, should not the Prime Minister get the Chancellor and the Health Secretary together and give us a coherent policy to give the people the health service that they deserve, not a shambles?

Tony Blair: First, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. What cannot be predicted is what other countries spend on their health care system over the next few years; but what we do know is that the European Union average has remained roughly around 8 per cent. over the last decade. In fact, there is one major country in the world which is increasing public spending as a proportion of national income on both health and education, and that is Britain. We are able to do so because of the strength of our economy. If we had taken Liberal Democrat advice over the past few years on our spending plans, we would have interest rates through the roof, we would have national debt doubled again and the country would be in a mess.

Louise Ellman: Will the Prime Minister review this country's relationship with Iran, following its continued material and financial support for Hamas, which carried out the mass murder of so many Israelis on Saturday and Sunday in Jerusalem and Haifa? Does he consider that having good relations with a terrorist state is an objective with which the Government should not be associated?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of our relationship with countries such as Iran, and I shall tell her exactly what I think. I think it is important that we engage in a process of dialogue, but that dialogue should be based on one clear understanding—that, in the end, there can be no new relationship with countries which, for a variety of reasons, have had a very poor relationship with the western world over the past few years. We want matters to improve, but there can be no new relationship with those countries except on the basis that they cease supporting activities of terrorism.

Michael Fallon: Has the Prime Minister yet reviewed the ludicrous arrangement that means that nurses in the high-cost areas of Kent and Essex are not entitled to the cost-of-living supplement that applies in Hampshire or Wiltshire? As a result, our hospitals must meet the extra costs of paying for agency nurses and recruiting abroad. Is the right hon. Gentleman happy to have reduced the NHS to the point that hospitals have to fly nurses in, at exactly the same time as they are flying patients out?

Tony Blair: Of course it is true that we have been able to introduce this new allowance only for people in certain areas. I well understand that people in other areas feel that they would like the same allowance, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, before this Government came to office, no additional financial help was available. It is true that we need to make more financial help available to nurses and others, but I am afraid that that once again returns us to the central difference between the Labour and Conservative parties. We believe in investing in the national health service, but the Conservative party's position—very apparent in the debate earlier this week—is to take that money out.

Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Children's Society's decision to withdraw, without any consultation, from all its work in Wales, even though it is the largest provider of advocacy services for the most vulnerable children in Wales? Will he join me in condemning the society's action, and will he ask it to reconsider its decision?

Tony Blair: I understand the concern raised by my hon. Friend. It is a disappointing decision, and I know that discussions are on-going about it. I hope that those discussions can reach a successful conclusion.

Patrick Mercer: Violent crime in Newark and Retford has increased disproportionately recently. Will the Prime Minister explain, therefore, why the funding for Nottinghamshire constabulary is to be cut in real terms by £3.1 million?

Tony Blair: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman exactly the situation with regard to funding, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is sitting beside me, tells me that the situation described by the hon. Gentleman is not the case. No doubt there is a point there to be elucidated. In general terms, however, the Government have put substantial extra resources into police authorities up and down the country. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that was part of the last comprehensive spending review settlement. We outlined that settlement at the time and put in the extra resources, but the Conservative party called that dangerous and irresponsible.

James Plaskitt: The latest league tables show that average performance in primary schools in my constituency has improved by 14 per cent. over the past three years. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating staff and pupils on that achievement? Does he share my view that the £1.9 million allocated to Warwickshire solely for literacy and numeracy will enable those schools to continue that progress in the future?

Tony Blair: There is massive additional investment going into education. Perhaps one of the most important reports of recent times was the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on educational standards and achievements across the world, which found British educational achievements to be among the highest anywhere in the world. The fact that we are very near the top of the table in areas such as literacy and numeracy is an enormous tribute to the hard work of teachers up and down the country. It also vindicates entirely the strategy of investment and reform in our education services. The Labour party will certainly continue that strategy in government.

Iain Duncan Smith: Last week, as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) said, the Prime Minister said that he had a commitment to spend at the European average of health spending. Over the weekend—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are shouting down the Leader of the Opposition. That cannot be allowed.

Iain Duncan Smith: On Sunday, the Prime Minister said that it was a broad aim; today he says that it is a commitment. If it is a commitment, he must know exactly how much it will cost. Will he please tell the House what the extra cost is?

Tony Blair: It has come to something when the right hon. Gentleman has to recycle his questions from the Leader of the Liberal Democrat party. Yes, it is important that we meet the European average which, as I said a moment ago, over the past decade has remained at roughly 8 per cent. We are committed to raising our health service spending to that European average. I am committed to raising it to that European average which, as I have just said, has been about 8 per cent. over the past decade. Now perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he is committed to it.

Iain Duncan Smith: People out there do not pay their tax as a percentage; they pay it in real money. Will the Prime Minister now tell the House—[Interruption.] Well, it is clear that the Prime Minister makes it up as he goes along. It is a commitment today, a possibility tomorrow, now a percentage; but people on low earnings have to pay for it. Will the Prime Minister please tell us exactly how much this commitment really is, or does he not know?

Tony Blair: I have just said that we will reach the European average, which is 8 per cent. The difference between us is very clear—we believe that this money should be put into the national health service. Let me tell the House what the shadow Chancellor said about the national health service in a debate this week. He said:
	"The NHS is indeed a Stalinist creation."—[Official Report, 3 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 89.]
	Conservative Members are all nodding their heads. I assume that it is not a compliment. Later he was asked whether he still guaranteed, as the Conservatives said in their manifesto, a fully comprehensive service, free at the point of use. He said "fully comprehensive" but refused to say that it would remain free at the point of use. We believe in the national health service, free at the point of use. Let the right hon. Gentleman tell us that he does.

Iain Duncan Smith: We do not need any lectures from the Prime Minister. He is the leader of a party that introduced charging into the health service and he still has charging in the health service. The reality is that the Prime Minister and his Chancellor have spent their time rowing about this over the past week, and the Prime Minister does not have a clue. The Chancellor attacks the Secretary of State for Health when he calls for a hypothecated tax—the Chancellor says that it should not happen. Where does the Prime Minister stand? What is the Prime Minister's view? Will he tell us whether tax will go up, whether spending will go up and by precisely how much?

Tony Blair: I am not writing the comprehensive spending review, but I can certainly say that it is important that we raise more money for health care in this country—

John Bercow: How much?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Bercow, be quiet.

Tony Blair: That will be a difficult task, Mr. Speaker.
	Of course we want extra money spent on the health service. The ludicrous thing about the right hon. Gentleman is that he says that he wants to look at other health care systems. He listed a whole lot of other health care systems in the article he wrote today—[Interruption.] This is directly on spending. He listed systems in the Netherlands, France, Germany, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand, all of which he was going to look at. They all have something in common—they make more public spending provision than this country. So if the right hon. Gentleman says that this is his vision of the future, presumably he agrees with us, but we know that he does not. We know that from the article in The Times today, written by the Conservative party think tank—advisers to the Conservative party. On the board of that think tank are the shadow Home Secretary, the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and, yes, the shadow Chancellor. The article is entitled "Abandon the NHS"; they conclude that it will not work. As someone might say, "Ask a Tory question, get a Tory answer".

Phil Hope: My right hon. Friend will be aware that crime in Corby is coming down, but that the fear of crime—especially among older people and young people—is still too high. Although we are looking forward to measures for police reform and to extra cash for closed circuit television, does my right hon. Friend agree that better street lighting actually raises the confidence of people to go out at night and be confident that their streets will be safe and that they can live in a safer community?

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the new crime and disorder partnerships that were introduced by the Government have made a big difference to fighting crime on the ground, but they need to be taken further. In my view, we also need further measures—especially against antisocial behaviour, which is probably the biggest problem in many of our constituencies up and down the country. For that reason, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be introducing measures in the criminal justice Bill that will allow us to fight those problems much more effectively in the future.

Laurence Robertson: If the Prime Minister wants to increase funding for health, does he agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) that social insurance schemes should be considered, or does he agree with his Chancellor that they should not?

Tony Blair: That is very simple. I agree with exactly what the Chancellor said: we want the money—done through general taxation. It is not merely me or the Government who have said that; it is also, for example, the British Medical Association in a report published in February this year, which stated specifically that, on grounds of equity and efficiency, we should have a national health service. With the greatest respect, I do not think the questions need be asked of this side as to where we stand: we stand for extra funding coming into the national health service, allied to reform—fundamental reform. We believe in a national health service free at the point of use. The hon. Gentleman does not need to preface his question by asking me if I am in favour of extra health service spending—I am. The question is: is he?

Vernon Coaker: The Prime Minister will know that one of the great concerns that we all share is the low level of participation, especially of our young people, in our democratic process. At the last election, just four in 10 of our 18 to 25-year-olds voted. Will my right hon. Friend make that a priority and will he look at imaginative steps that we can take to try to re-engage our young people in the formal political process?

Tony Blair: One of the reasons for the establishment of the Electoral Commission was precisely to try to look at how we can widen participation. This is an issue not just for this country, but for other countries. I also think that we need to make it easier for people to participate, but perhaps we all need to go out and explain to people—no matter how they vote—that politics is important and how political decisions affect their lives. We only need look around to see how—after the events of 11 September—political decisions taken by Governments around the world have had a dramatic impact on the lives of people in this country and elsewhere.

Mark Prisk: Can the Prime Minister confirm that if any member of his Government is found guilty of doing a McLeish they will also lose their job?

Tony Blair: If the hon. Gentleman has any specific allegations, let him make them, rather than leaving a general smear hanging in the air.

Neil Gerrard: Our Government played a very important part in setting up the global AIDS and health fund. Is the Prime Minister aware that so far only £1.5 billion has been pledged to that fund, compared with the £7 billion to £10 billion that Kofi Annan said was needed annually; and that some poor countries, such as Uganda, have actually made bigger contributions, relative to their wealth, than many richer countries? Will the Prime Minister consider, first, increasing our contribution; secondly, doing what he can to encourage other western Governments to contribute more; and, finally, encouraging major British companies to contribute in the same way that some big American companies have done?

Tony Blair: We certainly want to encourage greater private sector influence and commitment; indeed, I have held meetings with private sector companies on this issue. We are committed—as Britain—to about $200 million for that global health fund. The overall fund is $1.8 billion. Obviously, it is true that at the moment we have not spent all that, but that is probably for good reasons as well as bad—in part to ensure that any money we spend actually goes to the people who need it and that it is properly used. I can assure my hon. Friend that our commitment is absolute; we have shown that, by having—in a sense—led the argument over the past few years. If we can do more, we will

Ann Widdecombe: I am aware that the Prime Minister has been asked this before, but there was so much noise that I did not happen to get the answer. How much will it cost him to achieve his ambition of reaching the European average on health expenditure by 2005? The question is how much, and the answer is . . . ?

Tony Blair: The answer is as I gave a moment or two ago—[Interruption.] Yes, I am afraid it is. We will meet the European average, and we will do so because we believe in putting extra resources into the national health service. As I said, when the comprehensive spending review is published, the right hon. Lady will see that the Government are committed to putting more money into the health service, and it will be obvious that, whatever sums of money we put in, she and the Conservative party are committed to taking them out.

Chris Bryant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are 22,700 pensioners in my constituency, many of whom have small occupational pensions and will be delighted with last week's announcement that their attempts to save throughout their lives will be rewarded rather than harmed; but will he and his colleagues make every effort to ensure that every pensioner in this country claims every single penny that they are entitled to, so that we can say goodbye to pensioner poverty for ever?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that pension measures— the minimum income guarantee, for example, helps the poorest pensioners—are there for all pensioners: the guarantees that were given by the Chancellor in his statement last week, the free TV licences for the over-75s and the winter allowance, which, of course, the Conservatives refused to introduce and still oppose. In respect of all those measures, we will help all pensioners and those who are poorest. The pension credit allows us also to help people who have modest savings but who often find that those savings do not actually help them to gain a proper income in retirement. It will allow us to do that and will benefit something like 5.5 million pensioners.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Prime Minister will know that, since February of this year, the Strategic Rail Authority was instructed to put on hold the choosing of a franchisee for Welsh railways. We have had 10 months of damaging delay and services going down—10 months of damaging economic anxiety. Will the right hon. Gentleman please have a word with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; otherwise he will have to find somewhere else to bury some bad news?

Tony Blair: Of course it is important that the decision is taken. I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend is aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I cannot give him the date now.

Geraint Davies: How easy, in the Prime Minister's view, will it be for Yasser Arafat to hunt down and hand over the terrorists responsible for the 25 brutal murders in Israel when he and his security infrastructure are being bombed by the Israelis, and the Americans are failing actively to call for restraint?

Tony Blair: First, I should express sympathy—I know on behalf of the whole House—for the savage acts of terrorism that killed so many innocent Israelis just a short time ago. It is important in my view that the Palestinian Authority does everything it possibly can to ensure that those in the organisations responsible for those attacks are rounded up and put under proper lock and key. That is the very minimum that the international community needs to see from the Palestinian Authority. Although there may be difficulties in certain areas in the authority acting in that way, it is necessary that it does so, and it must show that it is doing everything possible to ensure that those responsible for those atrocities are withdrawn from their population and put, as I say, under proper lock and key.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Prime Minister recall that when he came to our local hospital during the recent election he made two predictions? First, he predicted that Labour would hold North-West Norfolk. Secondly, he predicted that, if Labour won, the health service would get better. Is he aware that that latter prediction has a very hollow ring for my constituent Mr. Andrew Gray of Ringstead, who, having waited in pain for 16 months for a hernia operation, has had it cancelled not once, not twice, but four times? Does not he owe an answer to Mr. Gray? Will he answer also the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)?

Tony Blair: Of course it is wrong that the hon. Gentleman's constituent should have had his operation cancelled. It is correct, however, that 19 out of 20 operations are actually done within the time that they are supposed to be done. What is more, now some 70 per cent. are done within three months. I do not know the exact circumstances of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, but I know that that constituent could not possibly be placed in a better position as a result of the Conservative party's proposals, which are to force people to pay for their operations.
	I have to say to Conservative Members that this debate about the national health service and how it is funded will go on from now until the next general election. The truth is that the money going into the health service has actually improved it. We need to do much more and we will do much more. Every single change that we have made on extra resources has been opposed by them. If they were given the chance to run our health service again, people would be forced to pay for their operations. That will never happen under this Government and this party.

Tony Wright: Does the Prime Minister know of any public institution apart from this one where the people who are regulated have the ability to choose and dismiss the person who regulates them?

Tony Blair: It is for this House to decide how the Commissioner is appointed, who that Commissioner is and the terms of that appointment. I have to say to my hon. Friend and to some Opposition Members that, if the House wishes to change the rules, the measures lie with the House itself. A House of Commons Commission was established with Members of all political parties on it, including the Conservative party's Chief Whip. If people want to change the rules, they are perfectly entitled to do so. However, just because my hon. Friend thinks it is right to change them, that does not mean to say that it is. It is for the House as a whole to decide.

Middle East

Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy in the light of recent events in the middle east.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for asking this private notice question.
	I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing once again the shock and anger that I felt when I heard the news on Saturday night and on Sunday morning of the series of terrorist atrocities in Jerusalem and in Haifa, in north Israel. These atrocities killed at least 25 and injured more than 180 people. They came on top of a series of other terrorist attacks that have caused many deaths and that, in turn, have put the people of Israel in fear of going about their normal lives.
	On Sunday, I spoke by telephone to Shimon Peres, the Israeli Foreign Minister, and then to President Arafat of the Palestinian Authority. To Mr. Peres, I expressed my sincere condolences and those of Her Majesty's Government. To President Arafat, I stressed the imperative that the Palestinian Authority now properly detains terrorist suspects in Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups, and the imperative of the need for him to take other action to remove the continuing threat that terrorists pose to the stability of the whole region.
	Israel is entitled to take steps to ensure its security. Our approach to the peace process has been well set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by myself, including in my address to the General Assembly of the United Nations on 11 November. We have backed fully the initiative set out by the United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, on 19 November, and his appointment of General Zinni and Ambassador Burns as US envoys to the region.
	Although the situation is grave—indeed, precisely because it is—the case for peace remains as strong as ever. We in the United Kingdom and in Her Majesty's Government stand ready to do all that we can to help the parties to resume substantive dialogue and to bring about the swift and full implementation of the Tenet and Mitchell committee recommendations. Distant and difficult though that aspiration may appear, we work towards a day when two states—Israel and Palestine—live peacefully together within secure and recognised borders, as called for by Security Council resolutions.

Menzies Campbell: In the spirit of the day, I draw attention to an entry in the Register of Members' Interests against my name in relation to the Liberal Democrat middle east council.
	May I begin by sharing the expression of sympathy that the Foreign Secretary gave, not only to the Israeli community but, of course, to the Palestinian community as well? Even though it appears that the middle east is staring into the abyss, does he agree that it is necessary urgently to restate two cardinal principles: first, that Israel is entitled to live in peace and security within its boundaries; and, secondly, that the Palestinians are entitled to justice and a viable homeland, as both the Prime Minister and President Bush have said in recent weeks, although, unhappily perhaps, not in the past 72 hours?
	Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that whatever President Arafat's faults, and they are by no means negligible, it is wholly unreasonable to equate him with Osama bin Laden? Does he also agree that to target Arafat personally, or to encourage others to do so, will have grave consequences in the middle east, both in moderate and in radical states, and not least for the coalition against terrorism, which may simply fall apart?
	Finally, whatever violence may be committed against the people of Israel and whatever military action may be taken against the Palestinians, is it not the case—as I think the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged—that sooner or later dialogue will have to resume? Does he agree that that dialogue is much more likely to succeed if President Arafat makes serious, sustained and credible efforts to apprehend terrorists, and Israel, in return, exercises restraint and orders an immediate cessation of the policy of the expansion of settlements, which causes so much discontent and creates an atmosphere in which Hamas and Islamic Jihad can flourish?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his remarks, and express my sympathy for his current condition. I agree with what he said about peace, security, justice and a viable homeland. Indeed, I said exactly that in my remarks. As for equating President Arafat with Osama bin Laden, that is not a description that I or any member of the British Government has used or would use. There are many criticisms of President Arafat, but he is the head of the Palestinian Authority and needs to be recognised as such.
	My criticism of President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority is that they have not done sufficient to pick up the terrorists. I have had many conversations with President Arafat and other members of the Palestinian Authority. Their good intentions are not in doubt, but there is a failure to take action on the ground to pick up those terrorists who are known to them and everyone else. Those people have no love whatsoever for the Palestinian Authority, any more than they do for peace in Israel, the occupied territories and the middle east in general.
	Even at this late hour, it is essential that President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, in recognising the gravity of the situation, take action to pick up those known terrorists and terrorist suspects, not just to arrest them, but to detain them securely and in circumstances in which the international community and Israel can see that they are detained securely.

Richard Spring: We in the Opposition are horrified and outraged by the recent bombings in Israel. Only today, we heard of six more innocent civilians injured and, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, 25 young people were killed and many more critically injured on Sunday. Our thoughts are very much with the families of all those who have suffered so grievously since the intifada started. We hope that those who suffer in that way will, at some stage, feel a greater sense of security.
	Does the Foreign Secretary agree that no matter how difficult or even impossible the current position, it has never been more imperative to create the conditions for negotiations to start, based on the Mitchell process, and that, ultimately, going back to the Mitchell process is the only way to make progress? Does he agree that it is essential that Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian authorities ensure not only that those who are responsible for the terrorist outrages are swiftly detained and securely imprisoned, but that they are not quickly released, as has happened all too often in the past?
	Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the terrible impact of these events is to undermine economic structures in Israel, the west bank and Gaza, creating a vicious cycle of unemployment and deprivation that simply exacerbates the problems? Does he share our view that the continuing crisis might undermine not only the coalition partnership in Israel and the stability of the Israeli Government, but the personal position of Chairman Arafat, and that that is yet another reason why the violence and bloodshed must end? If the right hon. Gentleman, working through international organisations and other bodies and through the offices of our Government, can bring any influence to bear on that tragic situation, he will have our fullest support.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks on behalf of his party. I think that I covered most of his points in my previous answer. The Tenet and Mitchell reports set out a clear framework, agreed by both sides, for progressing from the current position to one of relative peace, and thence to longer-term negotiations.
	One of the many individual tragedies in the continuing tragedy that has befallen the region is that there was yet another window of hope following Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech on 19 November and his appointment of General Zinni and Ambassador Burns to take a hands-on approach to carrying forward the process. Yet again, extremists—in this case, on the Palestinian side—have exercised what in practice amounts to a veto on the process, blocking it for the time being. That makes it all the more important that such people, who kill innocent people and are negligent of people on their own side being killed, are locked up and detained for as long as is necessary, not released quickly.
	On the issue of political instability, we have seen time and again that the cycle of violence produces great instability and makes it all the harder for those who recognise that the long-term future of their region lies in peace to be heard.

Ernie Ross: Does my right hon. Friend understand that most of the young people who decide to give up their lives in such a way are born into occupation, live all their lives under occupation, and, with their families, suffer the daily humiliation of the extremes of occupation? At some stage, the Israelis have to get back to the negotiating table, but they will not do so as long as they are using their military might—Israel is the fourth or fifth ranked military power in the world—against a mainly unarmed civilian population. At some stage, the Israelis have to be told to restrain their military forces; otherwise, there can be no peace.

Jack Straw: I understand how strongly my hon. Friend feels. I hope that he, in turn, understands that throughout our years in office we have tried to be even-handed in the pursuit of peace. However, it is impossible to excuse the use of suicide bombers. Recent UK history has many instances of explanations being offered for various terrorist outrages on both sides of the Irish sea, but whatever the motives or background of those who committed the atrocities, one simple, terrible fact remained: innocent people were killed and that was wholly unjustified.

Francis Maude: The Foreign Secretary will command widespread support for the tenor of his remarks. Will he use Britain's undoubted influence in the region, especially at this stage, in the face of appalling provocation of the Israeli Government, to distinguish between targeted action against the terrorists, which is completely justified and with which no one can quarrel, and reprisals pure and simple, which cannot be justified and perpetuate the cycle of violence?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is now a question mark over whether Yasser Arafat is still a viable partner in the peace process? Either he has the ability to control and influence, and to stop these dreadful outrages taking place, in which case he is wilfully culpable for not doing so, or he is incapable of exercising that influence and control, in which case he is not much use.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He makes an important point about the difference between targeted action and untargeted reprisals. I will ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of the Government of Israel. They are important.
	In some ways, I wish that the position of President Arafat were as simple as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. However, it is not, as ever, in the occupied territories of the middle east. The simple fact is that President Arafat is the elected senior representative of the people from the occupied territories, and it is a matter for those people, and not for us, to determine who their representative is. Meanwhile, it is fair for us to point to failures by the Palestinian Authority to meet its international obligations to the state of Israel, which it has recognised, and its people. In my judgment, in failing to do so, it has failed, in turn, properly to protect its own people.

Fabian Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while we should condemn the Israeli military attacks personally on Chairman Arafat, we should recognise that he often speaks with one voice in English to the outside world and with another voice in Arabic to his own people? Until he speaks with the same voice to both his own people and the outside world, there can be no return to the peace table.

Jack Straw: I speak only a few words of Arabic, and I shall not try them out now. My hon. Friend knows well that any remarks made by President Arafat in Arabic can be translated quickly into English. All the important statements that he makes at his press conferences are in Arabic and not English, as I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister know, having been alongside him on such occasions. I do not think that there is a great deal in that point. However, it is important that we see action taken by the Palestinian Authority to detain those who are causing outrages and who are daily flouting and challenging the authority of the Palestinian Authority.

Nicholas Soames: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that however great the injustice that has been done to the Palestinians—it is a very great injustice—absolutely nothing can excuse the sort of behaviour that we have seen in the past few days? Does he agree also that this cycle of violence must end and that the European Union, sovereign Governments and America must bring every ounce of influence that they have to bear to secure a ceasefire?
	In wholly endorsing the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) about reprisals, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that until there is a ceasefire no process can begin, and that without a process there is no possible hope of the end of these wicked activities? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore agree to speak to his colleagues in the United States of America to ensure that the most severe pressure is brought on both the parties to this dispute for an immediate ceasefire?

Jack Straw: I shall see Secretary Colin Powell tomorrow in Brussels. This afternoon, I shall speak to, among others, Hubert Vedrine and Joschka Fischer, the French and German Foreign Ministers, with the precise aim of achieving what the hon. Gentleman wisely set out. I agree with him, with just one caveat. I agree that no serious peace process can begin until there is a ceasefire, but we need a process to achieve a ceasefire, and need it rapidly. Although that is difficult, I hope that General Zinni and Ambassador Burns will be able to assist with it.

David Winnick: Is it not clear that the terrorists responsible for Saturday's atrocities—crimes against humanity, as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) has just said—have no regrets about the Israeli military retaliation because they believe that it will deepen the anger of the Palestinians and create a breeding ground for terrorism? Will my right hon. Friend take up the point about the United States? Is it not clear that the one country that can have some influence on both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, but especially Israel, is the United States? Every effort should be made by the United States to bring about a viable Palestinian state, which, while it will not eliminate terrorism—no one has any illusions about that—will certainly help to undermine terrorism in that area.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend is right that the terrorists who caused the outrages—and, even more so, those behind them who did not volunteer as suicide bombers and continue to organise those outrages—have no regrets about the loss of civilian life or the provocation to Israel. However, I am afraid that that cannot lead us to assert that Israel should do nothing in response to those threats. There were plenty of occasions when we were fighting Irish terrorism when extremists in the Provisional IRA and others deliberately sought to provoke a reaction from the British Government and security forces; we had to make a proportionate reaction, but we had to react properly.
	The United States should be commended by both sides of the House for the efforts that President Bush and Secretary Powell have made since 11 September and, indeed, before that date. The Tenet and Mitchell reports were produced well before 11 September, but there has been an acceleration of effort since then, with the important statement by President Bush in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 10 November, followed nine days later by Secretary Powell's speech, which led to the appointment of General Zinni and Ambassador Burns. I know that the United States is ready to do everything that it can, but it believes, as we do, that the first steps out of the terrible situation must be taken by the Palestinian Authority to ensure that those terrorist suspects from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups are locked up and stay locked up.

Simon Thomas: I associate my party and our colleagues in the Scottish National party with the condemnation of the atrocities and the sympathy expressed in the House to those who have suffered on all sides. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the Israeli Government are seeking to make a direct comparison between their actions at the moment and those of the western coalition against terrorists in Afghanistan. Will he take the opportunity to reject that comparison and remind us both of the peace process that has taken place as a result of hard work in the middle east and the need to return to that process? Does he also accept that the Palestinian Authority's failures, of which there have been many in the past, are manifest, but that there is no viable alternative for the Israeli Government other than to discuss and negotiate with President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority?

Jack Straw: In all terrorist situations, there are differences in the discrete causes, but there are also similarities. I am afraid that the most dreadful similarity is that innocent people end up getting killed. Action that needs to be taken will vary; plainly, given the scale of events on 11 September, that action was different from the action required in the middle east.
	As to viable alternatives, everybody in Israel, the occupied territories and the region who supports a peaceful future for the middle east understands what needs to be done. It is all there, in Tenet and Mitchell. It is laid out in great detail in Secretary Powell's speech. Working out what ought to be done is the easy part; ensuring that it is done is the more difficult part. I come back to my point that if there is to be a pathway first to a ceasefire, and then to peace in the middle east, President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority must take action now—today—to lock up those terrorist suspects.

Tam Dalyell: Since any onslaught would make an appalling situation even worse, may we take it that the British Government are doing everything possible to deter certain Americans from the folly of attacking Iraq?

Jack Straw: I have set out before, as has the Prime Minister, our approach to the situation in Iraq. I was pleased that we achieved a much better roll-over resolution to United Nations Security Council resolution 1284, which is the current sanctions resolution, with a clear undertaking from Russia that there would be an enhanced sanctions regime with a proper goods review list within the next six months. The key to Iraq coming back into the civilised world is for Iraq to implement the undertakings imposed on it by the UN Security Council resolutions, including the re-admission of weapons inspectors. I say strongly to my hon. Friend that Iraq continues to pose a very serious threat to Arab states, as well as to the state of Israel, by its continued unlawful development of weapons of mass destruction.

David Tredinnick: What impact does the Foreign Secretary think the continuous building of Israeli settlements on Arab territories is having on moderate Arab opinion in this ghastly period? Does he think that it makes the task of the Palestinian authorities any easier when attacks are made on the police, police barracks and those who are supposed to be in authority? Is not Israel in a cleft stick, in that if it takes such action, it weakens the very authority that it is inviting to take tougher action against extremists?

Jack Straw: Successive United Kingdom Governments have said that they do not agree with the building of settlements inside the occupied territories. The future of those settlements must be one part of any peace process, but to get there—to achieve a sense of justice for the Palestinians, alongside what is equally and desperately needed: a sense of peace and security for Israelis—there must be an end to the violence, terrorism and vetoes on any kind of peace process. That requires of the Palestinian Authority the kind of action that I described.

Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the deaths of innocent Jewish teenagers at the hands of Palestinian terrorists, and the deaths of innocent Palestinian teenagers—of whom we might have heard a little more this afternoon—at the hands of the Israeli army, are both parts of the terrible tit-for-tat that is going on in what is called the holy land?
	Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that the Labour party members of the Israeli Cabinet walked out of the Cabinet meeting that decided that the Palestinian Authority was an entity that supports terrorism and must be dealt with accordingly? Will he bear it in mind that Yossi Beilin, the ex-Labour Minister who was the architect of the Oslo accord, wrote yesterday in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot:
	"The war that Sharon is planning . . . will push us many years away from the chance of leading a normal life"?
	Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that a Labour Member of the Israeli Parliament, Colette Avital, a former ambassador to Portugal, said yesterday:
	"Bombarding targets associated personally with Arafat is not fighting against terrorism. If we topple Arafat, are we ready to reocuppy all those territories and be again the masters of all those Palestinians?"
	Should not this Labour Government be listening to those Labour voices from Israel?

Jack Straw: We certainly listen to those Labour voices. I spoke directly to Shimon Peres on Sunday in answer to a phone call. I can think of no one who has sought more to secure peace in Israel and the occupied territories, but his mood was one of gloom and despair about the way in which these terrorists had undermined his efforts on the path to peace. My right hon. Friend asked me by implication whether we share the view expressed by Prime Minister Sharon, which is that the Palestinian Authority is an entity that supports terrorism. As I made clear earlier, that is not a description that we have ever used or would use. At the same time—I shall labour the point—it is extremely important that the Palestinian Authority does more to contain the terrorists who are operating from within the occupied territories. As it does more in that respect, any suggestions that it is supporting terrorism will dissolve.

Tony Baldry: When does the Foreign Secretary believe that Palestine will be able to exist within secure and recognised boundaries?

Jack Straw: I do not think that it is possible for anybody to put a time scale on that. It depends on when it is possible for the good people on both sides to exert power and come together to work on Tenet and Mitchell and then on a proper peace process. As I said, what needs to be done is pretty straightforward, but getting there is much more difficult.

Richard Burden: I am not aware of any hon. Member who has sought to excuse the suicide bombings at the weekend or subsequently. They deserve to be condemned.
	May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to an e-mail that I received today from somebody in Wadi Fouquin, a Palestinian village next to the Israeli border? Its road has been cut off and people cannot get in or out. The writer of the e-mail referred to a pregnant woman who may go into labour, but the village has no clinic and the people there simply do not know where or whether she will be able to have her baby safely. We need to say to the Israelis very clearly that the action that they are taking is disproportionate and is punishing a people collectively, which is against the Geneva convention. If we are to ask President Arafat to crack down on terrorists among the Palestinians, bombing the very security apparatus that could achieve that result is not a good way to go about doing so.

Jack Straw: The Palestinian people have suffered grievously since the territories were occupied and they continue to suffer. As many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have pointed out, a large number of entirely innocent deaths have occurred among Palestinians as well; indeed, a greater number of deaths have occurred. None the less, we must recognise that in the past six months, the Israeli Government have taken steps to work towards a peaceful solution. Yes, I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. There have been two recent windows for progress. Tourism Minister Zeevi was assassinated after a period of quiet that had lasted 10 days. The process was disrupted, after which there was continuing lower-level violence. Now there is a situation in which, notwithstanding the Powell speech on 19 November, the appointment of Zinni and Burns and the existence of a better prospect than there has been for many months of a process leading back towards Tenet and Mitchell, that effort and those chances and hopes have been vetoed again by terrorists. Any state that is in that situation is bound to take action—yes, proportionate action—to deal with it.

Andrew MacKay: In most certainly not condoning Israel's ill-targeted reprisals after the weekend's wicked events, may I nevertheless ask the Foreign Secretary whether he can confirm that Hamas is largely funded by sources in Iran, and, if that is so, what action we are taking against those sources and the Government of Iran, as a leading member of the international coalition against terrorism?

Jack Straw: I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman with the information that is publicly available about exact sources of finance for Hamas and other terrorist organisations. In Prime Minister's questions, my right hon. Friend answered a question about whether we should have better relations with Iran, notwithstanding some of the associations that have been mentioned. I share the Prime Minister's view that we are better able to achieve peace in the region by dialogue. I visited Iran twice in the past three months, and I make no apology for that. On my first visit in particular, I spoke to the Iranian Government about what we believe to be their support for terrorist organisations elsewhere in the middle east. That dialogue and engagement must continue.

John Austin: Although we must be even-handed in our condemnation of indiscriminate acts of violence that kill innocent civilians, whether by Islamic Jihad, Hamas or the Israeli state, is it right to base our foreign policy on even-handedness when one of the most powerful and heavily armed states in the world occupies its neighbour in contravention of international law and United Nations resolutions? With hindsight, does my right hon. Friend believe that we were wrong to abstain on the proposal for an international peace force—a protection force—earlier this year and that the United States was wrong to veto it? Does he agree that we might not be in our current predicament if that force had been established? Will he reconsider the matter now?

Jack Straw: I make no apology to my hon. Friend for trying to be even-handed in my approach to foreign policy. That does not mean that one produces an equally balanced statement every day; it depends on the exact circumstances. However, if even-handedness means securing the objective of the people of the state of Israel living in peace and security alongside a viable state of Palestine, which also enjoys peace and security, I plead guilty to it. Such an approach is the only way to achieve peace in the region.

Julian Lewis: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the fairness and consistency of his statement and answers today. I remind him and the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) that when a United Nations force was ordered out in 1967, a chain of events began with threats to Israel and culminated in the occupation of what are today the occupied territories.
	The Foreign Secretary correctly differentiates between the actions of bin Laden and Arafat. However, perhaps a better parallel is between the actions of bin Laden's suicide bombers and those of Hamas's suicide bombers. When we consider the measures that we have taken against bin Laden, is not it correct that similarly tough measures against Hamas and its suicide bombers should be undertaken by the one democratic state in the area: Israel?

Jack Straw: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, one of the most striking features of the middle east conflict is the extent to which people can be partisan even in their analysis. It is almost impossible to find a single work that presents both sides of the argument fairly. Like the Irish question or the Kashmir question, one can argue about the matter for ever and a day. Who cast the first stone? It depends on one's point of view. In all those conflicts, many stones have subsequently been cast and we must end that in the interests of the people concerned.
	On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is neither appropriate nor helpful to try to compare one group of terrorists to another. I repeat that if one is killed or maimed by a suicide bomber, it does not matter whether that person was ordered to act by bin Laden or Hamas; the victim is still dead or injured. When I was Home Secretary, I proposed to the House that the military wings of Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Hamas, among other terrorist organisations, should be proscribed. The House agreed to that.

Peter Pike: We all condemn the appalling atrocities that took place on Sunday, and acknowledge that Palestine needs to do more to tackle the problem of terrorists operating from within Palestine. The difference, however, between those atrocities and the excessive reprisals taking place from Israel is that those reprisals are being carried out officially by the state of Israel. We must remember that at all times. Does this not make it much more difficult for us to open the window of opportunity and get back to where we were last year, when a negotiated settlement was within reach? Since then, violence has escalated, and it has become increasingly difficult to keep that window of opportunity open.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend is right to assert that the cycle of violence that has taken place, particularly since the intifada began on 28 September last year, has made restraint more elusive on both sides. We all wish to see restraint. It has also led to the circumstances described my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), in which those who seek to be a moderating or restraining element in the politics of Israel or the Palestinian Authority have less authority than before.
	My hon. Friend is also correct to say that an important opportunity to secure lasting peace was missed last year, and that what has unfolded since has its origins in the failure to achieve a settlement at that stage.

Malcolm Savidge: Surely we must urge restraint on both sides even-handedly—as has been said—and recognise that for a state to commit indiscriminate acts of reprisal and revenge can be just as morally reprehensible as terrorism, and can provoke escalating violence. Will the Government seek diplomatically to impress on our US allies that for some members of the Administration to make partisan or inflammatory statements can only exacerbate the conflict, undermine the international coalition against terrorism and endanger world security?

Jack Straw: Of course everybody wishes to see restraint exercised and action taken proportionately—a point made by the right hon. Member for Horsham earlier—and properly targeted. We must also recognise, however, that a proportionate response is determined by the proportion of the outrage that occurs before it. That is the difficulty that we face in this situation.
	So far as United States policy is concerned, I tend to follow the official statements of Secretary Powell and President Bush, rather than newspaper reports of what somebody is supposed to have said to somebody else. So far as the official statements of Secretary Powell and President Bush are concerned, they have my full support and the full support of Her Majesty's Government.

Anne Campbell: While condemning absolutely the suicide attacks in Jerusalem and Haifa at the weekend, may I ask my right hon. Friend what pressure the British Government can bring to bear on the Israeli Government to withdraw from the west bank and Gaza, as demanded officially by the United Nations in 1967?

Jack Straw: As President Bush spelled out in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, we are all seeking a secure and safe state of Israel, operating within internationally and regionally recognised borders alongside a viable state of Palestine, in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions. All of us in the international community subscribe to the implementation of those resolutions, but to get to what is laid out in resolution 242—and subsequent resolutions—requires action on the ground by the parties. I have suggested to the House today how some of that action might be achieved.

Louise Ellman: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the perpetrators—and their backers—of the continuing atrocities against Israeli citizens are people who want the elimination of Israel, rather than a just solution to the conflict on the basis of two secure and viable states?
	Does my right hon. Friend recall that a year ago it was the Palestinians who walked out of negotiations? Does he feel that the continuing messages of hate broadcast by the Palestinian Authority and taught in Palestinian schools over the years, including recent months and weeks, provide some justification for Israelis' fears that they are now fighting for their existence, not for a just solution based on Israel and Palestine?

Jack Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says: almost all those who are behind, and claim to speak for, the suicide bombers, and other terrorists, want Israel to be eliminated. That cannot happen; it must not happen. It is completely inconsistent with any sense of humanity, and with international law.
	As for what happened last year, there are many arguments about who did what, and who caused the negotiations to fail. All I know is that, according to what I have seen, they came within an ace of success—and if they had succeeded, the conditions of the people of Israel and those in the occupied territories would be very much better.
	I also accept what my hon. Friend said about the way in which children in some areas of the middle east are being incited with parodies of Israel, although I must add that a measure of restraint should be exercised in regard to similar things that have been said by some Israeli politicians.
	It is the Palestinian Authority that has signed up to a proper recognition of the state of Israel, and we look to it to put that recognition into effect.

Neil Gerrard: My right hon. Friend said that Israel had a right to take steps to protect its security. Does he accept that its long-standing policy of the targeting and assassination of Palestinian activists simply cannot be justified? While no one seeks to excuse suicide bombers, was not the Government of Israel's deliberate choice to assassinate a well-known Hamas leader just before the arrival of the American peace envoys guaranteed to provoke a violent response of some sort, to continue the cycle of violence, and to prompt a suspicion that it was designed to do precisely that?

Jack Straw: I have condemned such killings in the past when I have felt it justified, in the terms used by my hon. Friend, and I shall continue to do so when it is appropriate. US Secretary of State Colin Powell has done the same. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying; but what we—Members on both sides of the House—must do is ensure that one act of violence is not excused by what happened immediately before it.
	There was no excuse for the terrorism that took place at the weekend. Had it not taken place, there would have been a good prospect of Zinni and Burns being able to restart the peace process. The result of its taking place was the understandable reaction of people in Israel, described by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). It greatly increased the levels of fear in Israel, which are already palpable and which mean that many people in Israel simply cannot go about their normal lives as they would wish. Their children cannot go to school without being worried that they will be killed. Similarly, there is a cycle of fear and suffering in the occupied territories.
	We must say to those who are triggering the violence that they have to stop. As I have said, we must also say to the Palestinian Authority that it must take steps to apprehend, arrest and detain for a long time the terrorists who are causing these atrocities, while asking the people and Government of Israel to show a proportionate response in the face of such huge provocation.

Brian Iddon: May I pursue the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)? Is my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary as concerned as Shimon Peres appears to be about the dangers inherent in what is now the potential collapse of the Palestinian Authority? If so, will he communicate his concerns to Mr. Sharon?

Jack Straw: Yes, I have made clear our opinion on the Palestinian Authority. President Arafat is the elected constitutional head of the people in the occupied territories, and we believe that it is important that, as long as he enjoys the confidence of the people of the occupied territories and of the Palestinian Authority, he should remain in that position and we should deal with him. However, that is in no sense to justify some of the Palestinian Authority's failures, as I have spelled out today.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make to the House on the letter of 28 November from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to me as Chairman of the House of Commons Commission. It is a matter of great regret to me that a private letter written by an Officer of the House to the Speaker should have reached the media in this manner, and I have asked for inquiries to be made into how it has come about. As to the letter's contents, I will be writing to the Commissioner for Standards to ask her for details of the pressure that she says was applied to her in seeking to carry out her duties. I will also be expressing my surprise that she did not raise those concerns with me at one of our regular meetings to discuss her work. I shall have nothing to add to this statement.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order after the statement on police reform.

Police Reform

David Blunkett: With permission, I shall make a statement on police reform and on tackling crime and antisocial behaviour.
	There is not an hon. Member who would not testify that the greatest priority of their constituents is to live free from crime and antisocial behaviour. Freeing people from fear and insecurity that damages their quality of life is a fundamental tenet of government. I am, therefore, placing before the House a radical reform agenda for both the police service and those who work alongside it. It is time to act to protect the victims of crime and disorder, and to help rebuild and renew communities.
	I pay tribute to the professionalism and expertise of police and the civilian staff working with them. We all owe a debt of gratitude for the bravery that is often displayed by policemen and women. Our reform agenda will build on success. The British crime survey recently recorded an overall decrease in crime of 12 per cent. That is the largest annual reduction in 20 years, and the fear of crime has decreased from its peak, in 1994. There is, however, no room for complacency.
	Modernisation is built on increasing police numbers, and by next spring we shall have reached an all-time record of 128,290. Today, l am able to announce a new commitment: to meet the target of 130,000 officers by spring 2003 one year early. That will be achieved alongside an increase in civilian staff who will be additional to uniformed officers.
	Action is needed, however, to improve consistency and overall performance. Only one in four recorded crimes are detected, and only one in 10 result in a conviction. The variations across the country are unacceptable, and the time has come to tackle the differences in performance and in absence. Detection rates vary from a high of 63 per cent. to a low of 15 per cent. For robbery, the rate varies from a low of less than 15 per cent. to more than 50 per cent. One force achieved as few as eight days per officer lost through sickness, but another had twice that rate. One force achieved a medical retirement rate of 9 per cent., but in another almost two thirds retired on grounds of ill health.
	We have established a standards unit to work alongside a refocused inspectorate. That will ensure that the best can be replicated by the rest. A new central police training and development authority will draw together leadership, management and training. A new national centre for policing excellence will develop and disseminate best practice on investigation and operational policing. We will seek to improve personnel policies, and will establish a new locally delivered national occupational health service.
	To achieve the goal of safer communities, there must be a dramatic modernisation of working practices. Through the police negotiating board, we are seeking consensus on a programme of change and reform. We wish to ensure that those at the sharp end of public service are properly rewarded for the difficult job that they do. We are looking to enhance the status and rewards for those doing the most dangerous, difficult, or unsociable jobs. We want to see more flexible working arrangements and an end to unnecessarily restrictive regulations. The police negotiating board has been asked to agree changes to part-time working, the current 16-hour minimum, and the requirement to fix rotas a year in advance.
	Reform must be underpinned by support. We will cut bureaucracy and halve the number of best value indicators. The diary of a police officer illustrated that over two fifths of police time was spent inside the station. We will civilianise and computerise many of the tasks undertaken by those who would be better deployed out of the station. We will increase the number of specialist investigatory teams, develop a cadre of specialist detectives and accelerate the expansion of forensic work.
	Technology can also play a key role in enabling officers to do their job more effectively. The Airwave programme will now be extended across the country at a cost of £500 million, ensuring proper communication within and between forces. We will widen the number of those who can work with and assist the uniformed police. The number of special constables will be drastically accelerated. Community support officers—sometimes called auxiliaries—will be trained aides to the police. The expanded "police family" will allow street wardens, traffic wardens and others to be accredited by the police for specific duties within strictly defined limits. They will be appropriately trained.
	Our endeavour is to face down the antisocial and thuggish behaviour that bedevils our streets, parks and open spaces. That will help with our civic renewal agenda, ensuring that the community becomes part of the solution. The police cannot reduce crime and disorder and tackle the scourge of hard drugs alone. Families have a key part to play in teaching right from wrong, and respect for others. Local authorities, schools and the health service, and the voluntary and private sectors, must work together. All of us have a role to play in combating criminal activity and social disintegration: decency and respect are the responsibility of us all.
	It is through the crime and disorder reduction partnerships and our community renewal programmes that we will be able to restore confidence. By supporting neighbourhood watch and other local initiatives, and mobilising the community itself, we really can make a difference.
	Reform is for a purpose. Those we represent do not have a choice of policing services. That is why standards are at the heart of this reform. I am proposing today a three-tier approach to ensuring that the public are served to the standard they expect and deserve. Regulations setting out mandatory requirements, where it is necessary for all forces to adhere to a national standard, will drive consistency across the country. Codes of practice will be issued by and in the name of the Home Secretary. Those will be developed by the national centre for policing excellence, drawing on the expertise of the Association of Chief Police Officers. In addition, guidance, where local flexibility and responsiveness require a light touch, will provide a menu of best practice.
	There is no intention that the Government will interfere in the day-to-day operational independence of the police. That would not be in the interests of the people whom we serve, the police or the Government. However, where action is needed, it is the duty of the Government to respond. Using the expertise of the standards unit and the inspectorate, we will establish new powers of intervention where consistent failure provides inadequate protection for those whom we serve.
	Basic command units, as well as the police force area, will provide comparison, like with like. We will work with chief constables and commanders to establish and spread best practice. We will provide support through multidisciplinary approaches to tackle the worst of repeat offending and repeat victimisation. We will mobilise the community against drug-related crime, and establish policing priority areas. We will update the role of the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
	It is essential that we provide a greater degree of accountability as well as of devolution and delegation. We will establish pilots for decentralising budgets to basic command units, enabling greater flexibility in the use of resources and the response to local needs. In addition, we will support the developing role of the police authority in reaching out and responding to the community.
	When things go wrong, it is important that people have confidence in the process. That is why I confirm today that in the police reform Bill we will be establishing an independent police complaints commission.
	I spoke of our pride and confidence in the police service. That is why the Government have decided that we should award the Queen's jubilee medal to the police service. It is a symbol of our support. However, the test will be the difference that we make to the well-being of those whom we serve.
	I want to put to rest for ever the cry, "There is nothing we can do," which is so often heard. Our job is to make sure that those who need help get it. Those who fear to walk down their local street or in their local park must be able to do so once again. Our job—my job—is to mobilise all the forces at our disposal to make that a reality, and I am determined that we should do so.

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his courtesy in providing early copies of the statement and the White Paper.
	I begin by welcoming unreservedly the Home Secretary's splendid attack on the excessive bureaucracy recently imposed on the police forces of this country. We are delighted to receive him as a member of Her Majesty's opposition to the previous Home Secretary. I assure him that we shall work with him enthusiastically to demolish yet another part of the house that Jack built.
	We welcome also the aspirations in the White Paper to increase the flexibility of working practices in the police forces. As the Home Secretary rightly said, there can be no good reason for rigidities such as the requirement that one year's notice be given of any change in rest periods. However, will the right hon. Gentleman say by what means he will ensure that such rigidities will be removed in practice?
	The whole House will agree with the Home Secretary's desire to enhance the police's use of information technology, but what has happened to the custody and case preparation system based on information and communications technology, about which we were told by the previous Home Secretary on page 82 of his February White paper? While we are at it, what has happened to the rest of that White Paper? Will any of its remaining recommendations now be implemented?
	We share the Home Secretary's desire to provide the police with more ancillary staff, enabling policemen to spend more time maintaining order and fighting crime. It is not altogether surprising that we share this aim, since we have repeatedly called for such measures over the past few years. Does the Home Secretary accept that hiring people to support the police is one thing but hiring people to pose as policemen is quite another? Does he agree that the police have special authority because they are given special training, have special obligations and live under a special code of discipline? Does he accept that the morale of the police and respect for the police would diminish if, in an effort to provide a show of increasing police numbers, he were to erode or muddy the clear distinction between policemen who have these special characteristics and other people in uniform who do not?
	On the Home Secretary's important proposals on standards and targets, we recognise fully the need to spread best practice among the various police forces, as well as the need to expose the wide differences to which he referred in their performance. As the Home Secretary rightly points out, it is his duty to set national targets and to provide a stimulus for police forces to reach those targets. However, does the Home Secretary agree that there is a great difference between quite properly holding chief constables accountable for their performance and quite improperly seeking to micro-manage individual police forces from Whitehall?
	Is there not a danger that the operation of a standards unit, allied to reserve powers held by the Home Secretary, might lead in practice and over time to chief constables coming to think of themselves as employees of the Home Office? Is there not a danger that intervention by the standards unit in the affairs of individual basic command units within a given police force may gradually undermine the operational independence of the chief constable of that force? Is there not a danger that if the independence of chief constables is undermined in practice, some future and less benign Home Secretary may be able, to some degree, to politicise the police?
	Does the Home Secretary agree that these are delicate issues, which lie at the centre of the preservation of the rule of law in this country? Does he accept that the preservation of the rule of law is the single most important task of this House, and that nothing should ever be allowed to prejudice the fulfilment of that task?

David Blunkett: I think that I can welcome the welcome of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for the White Paper. In any event, I will, in the hope that he did welcome it. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions, and I will answer them all.
	Yes, we are tackling bureaucracy head on. We are tackling a legacy of decades of build up of codes of practice, paperwork that has been demanded and a failure to invest in technology that would allow people, from the moment they make their first notes, to be able to translate them all the way through the system.
	Yes, we will carry forward the case and custody programme. I make no bones about the fact that the history of technology for Government as a whole, and for my Department in particular, has not been good. Between the Lord Chancellor's Office and my Department, we are determined to get this right. We have just appointed Jo Wright from IBM, who will be taking forward the very important task of making sure that we get this right.
	Working practices and the development of a taskforce to carry forward the anti-bureaucracy drive under Sir David O'Dowd, who is stepping down as the chief inspector of constabulary, will ensure that the intention turns into reality. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not our intention to burden the police with any more unnecessary regulation.
	Hiring people to pose as constables is not something that we intend to do. We are responding to the cry from the community and the police service across the country with full-time community support officers—the Metropolitan police call them auxiliaries—who can work alongside and under the direction of the police service. Secondly, the street wardens whom I saw this morning in north London are massively increasing the reassurance and confidence of a community that has seen a dramatic reduction in attempts to burgle and take away vehicles in just the two months that the wardens have been there.
	Standards are of course at the heart of the matter and the hon. Gentleman is right to say so; we do not intend to take responsibility from chief constables, but rather to reinforce it. Chief constables will retain their operational freedom and I have made that clear this afternoon. To hold people to account—not to micro-manage—is no threat to anyone; someone has to hold chief constables to account and police authorities have a limited remit in relation to the budget and the developed plan. That is why we have experienced difficulties over the years. Simply to put the current rules on misconduct alongside a clarification of the rules on incapability or gross inefficiency poses no threat to anyone—nor does it in any public service, as far as I am aware.
	Chief constables will retain their operational freedom; they will not be set against superintendents—or commanders, in London. The operation on the ground—the police station that people relate to and refer to—is important. Giving supers freedom to use resources more flexibly will enable them to get people back on the beat, rather than spending their time in the police station—like the 43 per cent. average that we discovered.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the rule of law is paramount, and that we must uphold it and expect our judiciary to do so. Our policing services are at the front line of that. That is why we are giving them our backing. I think that I have answered all the hon. Gentleman's questions.

Simon Hughes: I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to the police, to the specials and to the civilians in the police service. I also welcome without reservation many of the things that the Home Secretary said. He made a clear commitment to replace the officers lost under the previous Labour Government, and to increase them to a record number. He made a commitment to a more flexible working arrangement and career structure for the police, and to an independent police complaints commission. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my party has for a long time argued for a standing conference on policing, so we welcome the creation of the new national police forum where it can be debated in a more studied way in future. Evidently, all my colleagues welcome the fact that, next year, the police will receive the Queen's jubilee medal for their services.
	May I push the Home Secretary a little further on police numbers? Does the Government's welcome commitment mean that there is a target and that by a certain date, "every community will have one"—to put it crudely—and that there will be community police officers throughout the land in urban and rural communities?
	Subject to questions and clarification, we also welcome the announcement about the extended police family. Will the Home Secretary confirm the important fact that they will all always be public servants—public employees—accountable either to police authorities or local authorities? Will he confirm that they will always be counted as additional to, and not instead of, the police establishment; and that their powers—I am aware of the points made in the White Paper—will be subject to the most careful debate and consideration, so as to obtain the maximum agreement between the public, police authorities and the police in the months ahead?
	I want to follow up the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on police accountability. There were some troubling inconsistencies in the use of the words "interference" and "intervention"—no interference but some intervention. Does the Home Secretary accept the old authoritative principle that no man can serve two masters, and will he confirm that he and the Government are absolutely committed to chief constables being answerable to their communities and their police authorities? Will he confirm that the Government have no intention of moving towards a national police force?
	On priorities, we share the Home Secretary's view that average national clear-up rates are unacceptably low and that the divergencies are unacceptably wide. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the public look to the police to achieve three things: first, to deter and reduce crime; secondly, to detect crime and bring criminals to justice; and, thirdly, to respond quickly and effectively when the public call on them? Does he agree that all three must be our objectives, and that we must not concentrate only on clear-up rates to the detriment of the other two?

David Blunkett: I accept the last point unequivocally, and it is one that would be shared across the parties. The target on numbers is reflected, of course, in the individual targets at force level, using as a lever the crime fighting fund, which my predecessor wisely introduced as a tool to ensure that good intentions were carried into practice. I cannot guarantee that there will be a police officer in every community for the reason that the word "community" is not precisely defined, but I take the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and all of us should seek to do so and to translate the targets that I have set for 2003 into further targets, following the review of expenditure in the 2002 spending review.
	The hon. Gentleman and the shadow Home Secretary asked about chief constables. We do not intend to interfere with the role of chief constables. Their relationship with the police authority will be paramount. That must be the case, which is why I have not taken the power directly to deal with incapability or inefficiency but to direct the police authority to act.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me about those who are employed as part of the wider family. Community support officers will be employed by the police service itself. Those who are not employed in that way and become the third tier, and are therefore wardens and the like, will be employed mainly by local authorities under the regeneration programmes. There will be a dual key so that their role can be activated only if the crime and disorder reduction partnership or the local authority, in the case of those who employ those people directly, agrees with the chief constable that that should be the case. We are not in the business of seeking to privatise the police, but, of course, security services work in large shopping complexes and major entertainment venues and we seek to accredit them and get them to work directly with the police, so that they are under supervision. When the security industry authority is up and running, it will enable us to do that more readily.

Chris Mullin: May I welcome the Home Secretary's proposals in the White Paper, which, I hope, will improve the efficiency and credibility of our police? In particular, I welcome the long-awaited independent police complaints commission. Does he accept that, although the quality of our policing has improved immeasurably in recent years, we still have a long way to go? Does he agree that it is hard to justify increased resources for the police unless we get value for the already considerable sums that we spend on policing? How confident is he that the measures that he has announced today will put an end to the overtime scams, the sickness scams and the early retirement scams that tarnish the reputation of British police?
	On detection rates, I am sure that the Home Secretary is aware that figures can be massaged. Will he ensure that we are comparing like with like; otherwise we shall put the most honest and transparent forces at a disadvantage?
	Finally, the Home Secretary referred to setting up a cadre of specialist detectives. May I offer a warning, by mentioning the west midlands serious crime squad? Many of the serious problems in the police over the years have developed from elite squads that have become a law unto themselves. I am sure that he will want to ensure that measures are in place so that, first, those squads are accountable and, secondly, that people do not stay in them for too long and develop bad habits.

David Blunkett: I take the wise words of warning from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Even those of us who were not involved in such issues at the time have engraved on our hearts the words that he uses. That is why the standards unit and the refocused work of the inspectorate will be critical in rooting out any dangers of that sort that exist, and why it is very important that the extension of the British crime survey to a sample of 40,000 individuals will ensure that we root down into command unit level, not just force level, so that we can examine in more detail the performance that my hon. Friend describes, so that we compare like with like and root out failure. I cannot guarantee—I wish I could—that all the failures and the undermining of confidence that my hon. Friend described can simply be eliminated. However, the tools and measures that we are putting in place will go a long way towards achieving that goal.

Christopher Chope: What does the Home Secretary propose to do to end the anomalies in the funding of pensions and the perverse incentives that the police pension system gives to people to retire earlier than they would otherwise wish? Furthermore, how is what the Home Secretary has said about rooting out antisocial behaviour consistent with the pressure that the Government are putting on the courts to go soft on the young vandals who appear before them?

David Blunkett: That is the first time that I have been accused of going soft on anybody or anything, and I have no intention of doing so. I intend to ensure that we take every possible measure to stop people reoffending and that we take tough action with the persistent offenders who obviously, as a result, have repeat victims. That is one of the scourges that we face. At any one time, about 100,000 people commit half the crime in this country, and the concentration on them does not mean going soft on the ones that we can deal with through the behaviour contracts and antisocial behaviour orders, which we will slim down. We will remove what I have described as the bureaucratic objections to implementing them and we will ensure that they are available more widely.
	The hon. Gentleman touched on an issue that relates to value for money. Everyone in the House would like to deal with the problem that he mentioned, and I look forward to him making a contribution to me personally on what he wants to happen and on how best we can achieve it.

Clive Efford: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but if the changes do not result in our being able to tackle the nuisance and harassment that takes places on inner-city estates, the action will not be worth taking. The police currently do not have the resources to target such incidents in our communities and the victims are often too fearful to come forward to give the necessary evidence so that appropriate action can be taken. Therefore, when my right hon. Friend sets up specialist detective units or street wardens, will the people involved be trained in gathering evidence? If they become expert witnesses, we can target a problem that causes so many difficulties in our communities and which is often raised in our surgeries at the weekend.

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right to say that properly trained and accredited individuals can play a part in becoming professional witnesses without experiencing the fear and intimidation that is present in many communities. West Lancashire has piloted a programme with the total support of the police and it has been able to provide cameras and tape recorders. It has been possible to use those eyes and ears on the ground to enable the police to take action swiftly and to get the kind of results that everyone would wish for their community.

Lady Hermon: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement on police reform, and particularly the creation of an independent police complaints commission. He will know that Northern Ireland is slightly ahead on police reform because of the Patten report. It put human rights at the core of police reform in Northern Ireland. Will human rights be placed at the core of the new codes of practice?
	On the award of the Queen's jubilee medal to the police service, will the Home Secretary clarify whether that extends to the new Police Service of Northern Ireland?

David Blunkett: The hon. Lady has me on the last point—I plead guilty to not knowing the answer. I have concentrated so much on England and Wales that I am not aware of whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made an announcement. I can assure her, however, that there is no question of discriminating against the new Police Service of Northern Ireland. I will check whether that announcement has been made and ensure, as soon as I leave the Chamber, that she is informed.
	The human rights codes need to be practical and of value on the ground. We will provide the advice and the necessary safeguards for the public and the police on what can and cannot safely be done within the remit of the codes. I want to ensure that the advice in the codes puts the human rights of the victims and the community, as well as of others, at the top of the agenda.

George Howarth: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially its emphasis on arrangements for youth crime and disorder—the No. 1 issue in many areas, including mine. What activity would trigger a standards unit intervention in a police force or a basic command unit?

David Blunkett: Once the data are collected and the comparisons are made, in addition to compiling an annual plan, the force or, in the case of a BCU, the superintendent working to the chief constable will be required to produce an action plan, which will be monitored. Should there be a persistent failure either to take on board the codes of practice or to follow guidance that elsewhere had set standards showing that good practice achieves change, such as the national intelligence model, it would be up to the standards unit and the inspectorate to work first with the police authority and, in extremis, to report to the Home Secretary, who will be empowered to instruct the police authority and the chief constable to act.

James Gray: A chief constable of my acquaintance supports what the Home Secretary says about the greater use of high technology to ease the job of the police. So, when he was instructed to send out a copy of today's White Paper to every policeman under his command, he was pleased to e-mail the Home Office to say that he intended to do so using e-mail. He was surprised to receive the response that, on the Home Secretary's personal instruction, he was not allowed to do that by e-mail and had to do it by paper. Why was that?

David Blunkett: It would be a damn good point if I had given a personal instruction either to the Wiltshire force or to anyone else. I am a great believer in people being able to read things easily and quickly. If forces wish to e-mail their stations and officers, they are welcome to do so.

Stuart Bell: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his statement will have the vigorous support of my constituents, especially those who suffer from the impact of under-age drinking and prostitution on the streets, and the severe impact of heroin dealing and use? Is he aware of the initiatives of Cleveland police to tackle drug dealers in a series of raids this week, followed by a commitment to take out a drug dealer a day? Will he convey his support and congratulations to the chief constable, Barry Shaw, and the chairman of the police authority, Ken Walker, on the actions that they are taking on behalf of our community?

David Blunkett: I think that my hon. Friend is challenging me to say "No", but I do, of course, offer an unequivocal "Yes I will." I am pleased that those people are taking that action. There is much that we can do together, not merely to tackle the problem of those who are dealing on the streets, but to contribute to the work that is taking place to tackle the intermediate market. In the west midlands, action is being taken to tackle those who stand between international traffickers and the people causing misery in our neighbourhoods. We have a long way to go, and the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service will have a part to play with local constabularies in making that happen.

Vincent Cable: I welcome the Home Secretary's encouragement for beat policing, but is he aware that some senior officers take a contrary view and have, in effect, abolished it? That happened in my area two years ago, to much public annoyance. Is it an operational issue for the police, or something to which national standards will apply?

David Blunkett: We shall provide guidance to forces on best practice. We want imaginative approaches. It is a question not of PC 49, with or without the whistle, walking the same beat every night and every day so that people get to know both when he will and when he will not be there, but of creating imaginative patrols that get people out of the station, interchanging those who are in plain clothes with those who are in uniform when that is appropriate, and ensuring that community policing means what it says.
	The standards unit will concentrate on achieving best practice across the board. Without the constable in the community and the intelligence that that brings, and without the reassurance that is part of the process, we will not get the change that we need. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if a force refuses to recognise that reassurance and support for the community and community partnership is not forthcoming, we shall take the necessary steps to ensure that action is taken.

Glenda Jackson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that his announcement will be warmly welcomed by my constituents if it means more bobbies on the beat, believing as they—and I—do in the deterrent power of a uniform. Will he assure me, however, that whoever is responsible for the expansion in numbers, whether of special constables or neighbourhood wardens, will pay particular attention to encouraging women and some of our older citizens to present themselves for those posts? Will he pay equal attention to ensuring that what we get is neighbourhood wardens, not neighbourhood vigilantes?

David Blunkett: The answer to my hon. Friend's last question is an unequivocal yes. Such people will have to be accredited, and the dual key will ensure that all partners involved are in agreement. Community support officers, the new civilian programme and wardens give us an opportunity to broaden the scope of those who are encouraged to take part in policing, for example, by working on the gender agenda, as it is called, which is mentioned in the White Paper, or encouraging ethnic minorities to participate. Such posts can be the initial steps toward wanting to become fully fledged police officers. We have a great opportunity to change the nature and the make-up of the police service, as we have seen in London.

Desmond Swayne: When the Secretary of State says that the number of special constables will be "greatly accelerated", what does he mean? Will he quantify it? Will he also give us the benefit of his latest thinking on the payment of special constables?

David Blunkett: Recent research into why the number of special constables fell found that, apart from many of them joining the full-time service, there were issues relating to management, recognition and the status that they were accorded. We can swiftly do something about that. In January, there will a new recruitment campaign. I am having discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—I always am—on getting a package of measures that will provide greater incentives to those who give freely of their time and energy.

Martin Salter: My right hon. Friend should be aware that his keynote speech on police reform to the Police Superintendents Association, which signposted much of the contents of his statement and the White Paper, was warmly welcomed by every senior police officer to whom I spoke. However, does he agree that police performance standards will not rise as hoped unless the Spanish practices so beloved by the neanderthal wing of the Police Federation are ended? Senior police officers must be allowed to manage resources effectively. Never again do I want to hear of the Thames Valley police constable who presented a doctor's sick note claiming that the officer could not be expected to lift anything heavier than a kettle, or of his colleague, who was off work with a bad back but still had time to continue moonlighting as a fitness instructor.

David Blunkett: Well, you only fire at an open goal when you discover that it is a hand grenade that you are kicking rather than the ball. I look forward to genuine co-operation from the Police Federation in getting rid of all the practices that give the police service a bad name, and that undermine the confidence, morale and motivation of colleagues. They have to fill the vacancies when others are not present at work. They have to do the job that somebody else should be there doing. They, like the rest of us, have to pay for those who retire early when that is inappropriate. We shall work together, including the occupational health service, to ensure that what my hon. Friend describes is never present again.

David Tredinnick: Having argued in the past from the Opposition Benches for an increase in the number of special constables, I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's proposals drastically to accelerate their numbers. However, I warn the right hon. Gentleman that he might find resistance among full-time police officers. How will he address that?
	If the Home Secretary is to introduce an extended police family, what additional powers does he propose for traffic wardens? Does he agree that that might have to be handled with some sensitivity?
	Will the independent police complaints commission have new members, or will it still use police officers to investigate police officers, as previously happened under the Police Complaints Board, and as still happens under the Police Complaints Authority? Will he examine the centralisation of policing, which has certainly been perceived as a problem in Leicestershire, where there are fewer but larger police stations? That is causing some concern.
	Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman again revisit the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—PACE—which requires the use of custody officers for charging? That involves many sergeants in police station work who otherwise could be out and about catching criminals.

David Blunkett: Yes, we are looking at civilianisation. A great deal can be done to ensure that a police officer is not tied down by duties that could be carried out by a properly trained and supported civilian staff member.
	I think that the hon. Gentleman asked me five questions. I am wondering which one would he like me to answer.

David Tredinnick: The complaints authority.

David Blunkett: The authority will be able to employ its own investigation officers rather than drawing down the resources of another police service.

Joan Walley: My right hon. Friend has presented a huge agenda for change. Given that there has been an all-round welcome, the proof of it will be in his ability to deliver the agenda for change. I congratulate him.
	My right hon. Friend will be aware that many forces throughout the country, including mine in Staffordshire, want to be on the innovative end of changing work practices and working with local communities in areas of greatest need and in neighbourhood renewal areas. Is there any way in which he can give his seal of approval to the services that we want to deliver in Stoke-on-Trent?

David Blunkett: We are extremely pleased that a number of areas have volunteered to be policing priority areas, which will not have rigid boundaries or be zones. In partnership with the police, and with investment through regeneration, areas of specific difficulty will be targeted. Policing priority areas will work with the police at a national and local level in bringing immediate and welcome relief to those who believed that nothing could be done and that nothing would be done. I am pleased that Stoke has volunteered to be part of that programme.

Norman Baker: There has been a broad welcome for the Home Secretary's statement, but there is also genuine nervousness that the independence of local police authorities should not be undermined by anything that the right hon. Gentleman has promised us. Does he accept that the proposed standards unit, which has many merits, could represent the first step on the road to a national police force? Does he agree that that would be a disappointing and unfortunate conclusion, and should not happen?
	May I also gently remind him that under existing powers he was able, in effect, to sack the chief constable of Sussex by press release? I hope that, in retrospect, he accepts that that was not a sensible move and that the police authority should be allowed to deal with those matters itself.

David Blunkett: I thought that it was sensible that Mr. Whitehouse resigned; I have no regrets about that. I want a system that works effectively and in which police authorities can deal with problems effectively. There is no question of centralising and nationalising the police forces of England and Wales; we are not proposing to do that. I make it clear, as I have done before, that the powers of the police authority will be exercised through the police authority.

Ross Cranston: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. In particular, I thank him for responding to representations that other hon. Members and I have made about having more special constables. However, in the west midlands, we face the problem of retention. Money and recruitment have gone up but, unfortunately, we lose disproportionate numbers to neighbouring forces such as Staffordshire, Shropshire and Warwickshire. What changes does my right hon. Friend propose to effect a solution to the problem of retention?

David Blunkett: I understand that there has been a problem with what might be described as seepage to other force areas. We need to work on that nationally, but we must also engage the inspectorate and others to work with the force on internal practices and consider how recruitment programmes in neighbouring forces can reduce the pressure. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) have just reassured me that they are on the case.

David Cameron: I join others in welcoming much of the Home Secretary's statement, particularly the decision to award the Jubilee medal to members of the police force, which will be warmly welcomed in my constituency. A number of police officers from Carterton police station wrote to me about the issue, saying how disappointed they have been up to now. I therefore thank the Home Secretary for his announcement.
	Does the Home Secretary agree that the test of his reforms will not be the standards unit, which may, or may not, clash with Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, or some of the things done at the top, but the extent to which power and responsibility is devolved to the station commander—often a chief inspector or a superintendent? Does he agree that it is essential that they should be able to empower police officers, pay more to those who are doing a good job and, on the rare occasion when police officers are not up to the job or are not suited to it, encourage them to find another profession?

David Blunkett: I agree entirely. The importance of leadership and management at that level and the exercise of sufficient flexibility will be crucial to the carrying out of that role, including ensuring that there is proper supervisory training for sergeants. The new role of beat officers will enable them to take more responsibility, including responsibility for the wider police family. All of that adds up to a delegation and decentralisation designed to meet specifically and flexibly the needs of the local neighbourhood and community.

Ashok Kumar: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement. How will he set up the independent police complaints commission, in which I have a particular interest, given what we have gone through with Operation Lancet in Cleveland over the past four years and what we have learned about accountability from that experience? It is important that we get accountability through the commission. Who will serve on it, and what consultation will my right hon. Friend undertake?

David Blunkett: A great deal of discussion and consultation has already taken place on the IPCC. I will ensure that my hon. Friend is brought up to date on the precise stage that we have reached in making key appointments. We will ensure that we can accelerate the independence of the commission by means of the recruitment that I described a moment ago, which will break the dependence of the current complaints authority. I know that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not entering into the pain and difficulty experienced in Cleveland; in future, we want to make sure that processes are speedy and effective.

Bob Russell: The Home Secretary rightly drew attention to the excellent work undertaken by the neighbourhood watch movement, and reference was made to support. Will that support include financial reimbursement to the volunteer co-ordinators who undertake so much excellent work for the neighbourhood watch? Was it an oversight that in the Home Secretary's statement there was no mention of Crimestoppers and the 0800 555 111 national eyes and ears service for the public, which, as I am sure the House will agree, provides an excellent service and should be properly funded?

David Blunkett: I gave neighbourhood watch as an example of a long-established and widespread organisation with—I almost said tentacles—parishioners in every ward. Crimestoppers is a valuable scheme and we are working with it on long-term funding. We have just announced a third of a million pounds to ensure that it is lifted out of its immediate financial difficulty. We want to share that with others. We will speak to the crime reduction and disorder partnerships about the funding of co-ordinator posts. It has been drawn to my attention forcefully in the past six months that although police authorities have authority over such matters, its application is spasmodic across the country. We need to address that.

Chris Pond: As a member of the police parliamentary scheme, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware that although serious crime in north Kent has fallen sharply in recent years, my constituents share his frustration at the relatively low detection and conviction rates, especially for persistent young offenders? He will be aware that in Kent we are fortunate in having a progressive and effective chief constable. Perhaps my right hon. Friend has discussed some of the proposals with him, as I am looking forward to doing later this week. Is my right hon. Friend confident that that approach will be shared by all chief constables? What will he do if he finds a chief constable who stands in the way of reform and wants to prevent the raising of standards, as proposed?

David Blunkett: The process described in chapter 7—go on, I shall be pompous—paragraphs 40 to 43 sets out the intervention powers to which I referred earlier, which are linked to the powers in chapter 6, paragraphs 83 to the end of the chapter. I thought that I had better memorise those during lunchtime—that was for Simon Carr of The Independent. The page numbers vary, depending whether one is reading e-mail or the print version. I shall end my reply by saying that I agree entirely with the accolades heaped on Sir David Phillips, not least because he is the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, and I have to do business with him.

Kali Mountford: Is it not worrying that the fear of crime stays stubbornly high, despite falling crime figures in the recent crime survey? Are not community constables well placed to tackle that? In his quest for good practice, I invite my right hon. Friend to visit Colne Valley, where he could congratulate Chief Superintendent John Holt on having the wisdom to recruit more community police officers, and PC Ian Oxley, who has worked tirelessly to recruit special constables, especially through his work with the community and local businesses to raise the much-needed money for women special constables, who need vests fitted for them costing £500 each. Does my right hon. Friend intend to resource special constables so that they can carry on their valuable work tackling the fear of crime?

David Blunkett: As I said earlier, I am very keen indeed to try to develop the role of special constables and the incentives that are provided to encourage them. I commend the examples that my hon. Friend has given. I do not remember her ever asking me a question about something that she has not insisted that I come and see for myself. Despite the depths of winter, which make Colne Valley a wonderful place to ski but not necessarily to get to, I shall do my best to do that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on to the next business.

Points of Order

Alan Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When answering my question yesterday about the Campbeltown to Ballycastle ferry, the Minister of State, Scotland Office said that he understood that, in relation to funding for the ferry, the Liberal Democrat Ministers in the Scottish Executive were
	"rather mean about the matter".—[Official Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 150.]
	I have a letter from Jim Wallace, one of the Ministers concerned, in which he writes that the Minister of State
	"comprehensively misrepresented . . . the position of the Liberal Democrat Ministers".
	I have also received a letter from the Minister of State, who apologises for inadvertently misrepresenting the views of the Liberal Democrat Ministers. As the original misrepresentation was made to the House, I trust that he will come to the House and apologise for his mistake. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, received any request from him for the opportunity to make such a statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no knowledge of such a request. The Minister of State is not present to respond to the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but will, no doubt, read the points he has put on the record.

Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have in my hands a document headed "Labour thugs attack MP", in which the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) makes a number of deeply serious allegations against other Labour Members, including Whips. He alleges that there have been both verbal and physical attacks on himself. In particular, he singles out the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) as attempting to intimidate him into believing that
	"if he did not stop criticising Government legislation, the Whips would not prevent other Labour MPs further physically attacking him."
	Those are extremely serious allegations. Similar allegations are made against the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd), who has personally and physically intimidated me in the past in this very Chamber.
	Have you had any notification, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to whether Mr. Speaker has received a formal complaint from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, who has said in a press release that he is making such a complaint? Furthermore, what action can you take not only to protect Members of this House from attack by other Members, but especially to protect dissident Labour Members from physical attack and intimidation by their own Whips? This is a most serious matter and action needs to be taken.

Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As somebody who has occasionally voted against the Government, I must say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) is more likely to launch a charm offensive than to intimidate anybody.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any complaint of the sort to which the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) referred should be made in the normal way that is laid down by the House, and will, no doubt, be dealt with accordingly.

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I speak as the representative of a number of parties that are not represented on the House of Commons Commission, despite the Prime Minister's claim that it is an all-party body. I might well be inclined to support the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), which appears on the Order Paper but for which no date has been fixed. Can I ask through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what procedure of the House Members from my party or from the other parties that are not represented on the House of Commons Commission can use to bring the matter and principle of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to the Floor of the House for discussion, debate, Division and decision?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The control of business in the House is entirely in the hands of the Government.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your advice on matters that will arise after consideration of the ten-minute Bill? Motion 4 deals with the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. I do not think that you were in the Chair for any of the relevant periods last night, but I am sure that your colleagues will have told you that the House was eventually adjourned on a Government motion in the middle of a debate on an Adjournment motion while the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was on his feet.
	I should like guidance on the following matters. First, is the resumed debate on the Adjournment motion that we were discussing when the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was speaking, or are we back to the substantive motion?
	Secondly, given that the original sittings motion was superseded by the Adjournment motion, which was in train when the House was adjourned formally, will we have a decent period for debate on the sittings motion? Does time begin again for that purpose? Some of the normal conventions on closure cannot apply if times for both debates are added together. Are we starting again?
	Will you assure us that the Parliamentary Secretary, who was properly in his place yesterday evening and kindly undertook to reply to matters that were raised, will have the opportunity to do so when other colleagues have contributed?
	I believe that we have never had occasion to deal with my last question. Today's Order Paper contains a motion on the business of the House that cannot have been tabled until extremely late last night. Is it in order generally for the Government to table motions when the sitting is suspended, or can that be done only when the House is sitting? Will you confirm that the business of the House motion was not tabled during the two periods when Madam Deputy Speaker suspended the House for 10 minutes in the early hours of this morning?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will do my best to answer the hon. Gentleman's points of order. First, we are discussing the substantive motion today. Secondly, no new time will be allowed; contributions that have already been made will count and hon. Members who have spoken will not be entitled to speak again. Thirdly, the Parliamentary Secretary has the right to respond to the debate if he so chooses; it is a matter for him.
	On the point about the Order Paper, the Government always have contingent instructions to take care of circumstances such as those that we are considering.

Graham Allen: Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the guardian of the conventions of the House, will you confirm that the usual channels do not exercise the right to speak in the Chamber? Is not it therefore rather cowardly, and against those conventions, to make allegations against a member of the usual channels? Colleagues regard my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) as so friendly that he has been given a job in the Whips Office this year that allows him to carry a large stick with which to defend himself against several hon. Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not believe that the House wants to go over that matter again. However, it is normal for an hon. Member to inform hon. Members if he intends to refer to them in the House. Hansard will record what has been said today.

Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that last night's sitting in secret was the first since the second world war?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, it was the first since 1958.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You referred to the fact that the House sat in secret; there is therefore no record of the sitting. How will hon. Members who were not present know who took part in the debate and who can participate in today's debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Those problems arise when the House sits in private.

Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs Etc.)

Neil Gerrard: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the carriage of disabled persons accompanied by guide dogs, hearing dogs or other assistance dogs by drivers and operators of private hire vehicles; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill is simple and has a simple purpose: to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to ensure that owners of working dogs are not refused the use of minicabs with their dogs.
	Earlier this year, an event was hosted by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association at the House of Commons to celebrate the introduction of section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which requires licensed taxi drivers to carry dogs in their cabs. That is a welcome change, but the provision has not entirely removed the discrimination that exists against the owners of working dogs, because the Act does not cover private hire vehicles—in other words, minicabs.
	The problem was first drawn to my attention about two years ago by a constituent of mine, Mr. Alan Powell, who described the problems that he had had over a number of years in finding minicab drivers who were prepared to take him and his guide dog. Drivers would turn up at his house when he had booked a car, but would refuse to take him when they saw the dog. He would regularly have to ring several companies before finding a driver willing to take him and his dog.
	This morning, I met a guide dog owner who described having gone to Tesco's recently to do his weekly shopping. After he had done his shopping, he spent two hours phoning one minicab company after another to try to find a minicab prepared to take him home. One or two actually arrived, but then refused to take him with his dog. In the end, the assistant manager of the store took pity on him, got her car out and took him home.
	Guide dog owners rely much more than most people on reliable and accessible taxis and private hire cars to help them get around and live a normal life. In a survey carried out recently by the joint committee on the mobility of blind and partially sighted people, one in seven people said that taxis and private hire vehicles were their most frequently used form of transport. One in five said that they used a taxi or private hire vehicle at least once a week. Many people said that that was because private hire vehicles and taxis were easier to use than most other forms of transport. It is obvious why that is the case: a door-to-door service is offered. A disabled person who does not have a guide dog might need a companion to travel with them, and taxis make life easier in that way. For people who rely on assistance dogs—be they guide dogs for the blind, hearing dogs or other types of working dogs—taxis are often the most convenient form of transport.
	Of course, the majority of taxi drivers are not the problem. Most people to whom I have spoken about this have said that the majority of drivers try to be helpful and courteous, but that some are quite the opposite. Some drivers and taxi companies are deliberately unhelpful, and some licensing authorities do not appear to think that there is a problem.
	The licensing situation for private hire vehicles is rather mixed across the United Kingdom. Generally, local authorities are responsible in England, Wales and Scotland, but London is different. In London, licensing will shortly become the responsibility of the Public Carriage Office, and there has also been consultation with the Greater London Authority about the possibility of such licensing being included in its remit. At the moment, however, no London authority has a requirement in its licensing regulations that guide dogs should be carried. Northern Ireland is also different, in that licensing there is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	There is no doubt that real progress has been made in the last two or three years, largely because of the campaigns that have been run by voluntary organisations. However, the situation is still patchy. Across the country there is a total of 374 local licensing authorities, and it is good that 257 of them have now put a requirement into their licensing regulations that private hire vehicles will have to carry guide dogs. Another 50 or so are working towards that aim, but more than 60 local authorities either are not interested or have refused to do anything to change the licensing requirements.
	Although progress has been made, there are still gaps. Guide dog owners may know the position in their own areas, but they cannot be expected to know where local authority boundaries begin and end, or whether a company is licensed in one area or in another. They may take a holiday in a different part of the country, and find that the requirements there are different. The patchwork of arrangements across the country creates real problems.
	Some local authorities that have refused to act have said, "We do not want to create burdens for small businesses." I am not sure what the "burdens" are supposed to be. Another response has been, "We have received no complaints; there is no problem in our area." I very much doubt that there is no problem, even if no complaints have been received. People may well not know the licensing position, and may not know who to complain to.
	Other authorities have said, "We will have a problem because many minicab drivers in this area are Muslim, and will object to having dogs in their cars." That is not the case. When the objection was discussed in my borough of Waltham Forest last year, one of the leaders of the local mosque helpfully made it clear that was not the mosque's attitude, and that it should not be used as a reason for minicab drivers to refuse to accept a guide dog.
	I was recently given a cutting from a Blackburn newspaper, according to which Blackburn with Darwen council is currently considering the possibility of extending licensing. A Mr. Mohammed Narwan, a representative of the local private hire drivers association, is quoted as saying:
	"People should be able to travel in private hire vehicles with their guide dogs free of charge."
	I simply do not accept the excuse about Muslim drivers. Obviously provision must be made for those who might require an exception on medical grounds, but that can easily be accommodated by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
	We are not discussing a problem that affects a huge number of people or would impose a huge burden on minicab firms. I am told that there are roughly 5,000 guide dog owners nationwide, but for them this is a massive problem that affects how they lead their daily lives. Both the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the Royal National Institute for the Blind have made it clear that they want this simple, positive change in the law, which would make life better for those whom they represent.
	If we are interested in social inclusion, we should certainly be prepared to take my proposal on board. It concerns an issue of discrimination—discrimination that we could end quickly and simply. That is the Bill's purpose.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Roger Berry, Mr. Tom Clarke, Harry Cohen, Mr. Edward Davey, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Colin Pickthall and Rev. Martin Smyth.

Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs Etc.)

Mr. Neil Gerrard accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the carriage of disabled persons accompanied by guide dogs, hearing dogs or other assistance dogs by drivers and operators of private hire vehicles; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January, and to be printed [Bill 62].

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Orders No. 114 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (legislative proposals and other matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland)) and No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)),
	That—
	(1) The Proposal for a draft Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order, being a legislative proposal relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 13th December at 2.30 p.m.; and
	(3) at that meeting—
	(a) the Committee shall consider the Proposal for a draft Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order referred to it under paragraph (1) above;
	(b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at 4.30 p.m.; and
	(c) at the conclusion of those proceedings a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be moved by a Minister of the Crown pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(5) Northern Ireland Grand Committee (Sittings).—[Mrs. McGuire.]
	Question agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 117 (Standing Committee on Regional Affairs),
	That—
	(1) the matter of regional governance in England, being a matter relating to regional affairs in England, be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs;
	(2) the Committee do meet at Ten o'clock on Tuesday 18th December at Westminster to consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and
	(3) the proceedings at the meeting be brought to a conclusion at half-past Twelve o'clock.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
	Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Business of the House

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [4 December],
	That,
	(1) At the sittings on Tuesday 11th, Wednesday 12th and Thursday 13th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Lords Messages relating to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill have been received; and
	(2) At the sitting on Thursday 13th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
	Question again proposed.

Douglas Hogg: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to continue the remarks that I was making last night. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I begin by apologising for the fact that I shall not be giving way to right hon. and hon. Members as generously as I did last night, when I gave way—I have counted—on 23 separate occasions. The House may feel that I had rather a good innings last night and that I might therefore be trespassing on the House's patience if I speak too long today.
	There is another reason why I shall not give way so often. I anticipate that the Government will seek to bring this debate to a conclusion within an hour or so of its start. I also suspect that various hon. Members who were in the Chamber yesterday, most of whom remained in the Chamber throughout last night's proceedings, will wish to say something in this debate. I have in mind specifically the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), but there may be others and I apologise if I have omitted anyone. I hope that it will be possible for at least those hon. Members to participate, if that is what they wish. It is with that in mind that I shall be much briefer than I would have otherwise been. I am also conscious that I have had an opportunity—51 minutes or so—to express my views.
	There is one other bit of business. May I welcome the Leader of the House to the debate? He was in the Chamber yesterday for the opening speech, but then he departed. He will see from the record that I made some pretty uncharitable remarks about his not being here. However, I am glad to see that, at least this afternoon, at a more convenient hour, he is on the Treasury Bench. I welcome that fact because this is an important debate.
	There is one more point that I should deal with before coming to the substance of the debate. The House will be asking itself—it might be helpful to know—why it is that we are debating something now that we were debating about eight or nine hours ago. Last night, we were debating the business motion, the effect of which is in reality to conclude debate on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill on Thursday 13 December—for reasons that I explained yesterday—at 7 o'clock. Various right hon. and hon. Members—including me, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—felt very strongly about that. There are powerful arguments against the proposals and those hon. Members advanced them powerfully.
	There were, however, only about two more speeches to be made last night, when it became apparent that the Government were going to move a closure. We knew that because those of us who have been in this place for some time suddenly saw that the Labour Benches, which had been largely deserted, had begun to fill up. We also saw the Government Whips chuntering together in the way that they usually do. We therefore knew that there was going to be a closure.
	Liberal Democrat Members—I commend them on this—hit upon a procedural device: to move that the House sit in private. As I understand it, that was the first time since 1958 that that has happened. Unfortunately for the Government, however, at that critical moment, they were plotting closure. So when Liberal Democrat Members moved the motion, there was no one to cry no. The consequence was that we went into private session, the Galleries were cleared, the amplifiers were switched off, Hansard departed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he is not going to speak at quite the same length as he did yesterday, but he is now giving a blow by blow account of what happened in the Chamber last night. Perhaps he could turn to the substance of his remarks.

Douglas Hogg: As there was not a record of the proceedings, an account might be helpful; but I have of course finished my reprise. I have explained why we are having this debate today. However, we are debating a very serious point.

John Gummer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we seem to be able to debate the motion in prime time today without any real inconvenience to the Government's agenda for today? Would he like to try to explain why the Government thought that they could not do today what they tried to do in the middle of last night? The public should be made aware of that.

Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend makes a serious point. This is an important business motion and it was being secreted through last night. What is more, it would have been voted on by the deferred voting procedure, which means that hon. Members sign a visiting book on Wednesdays. I refuse to participate in that process, because it is wrong in principle. It is right and proper that matters of importance should be debated on the Floor of the House in prime time and that right hon. and hon. Members should vote in the ordinary way.

Simon Hughes: I endorse the remarks made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was the objective of my colleagues and I at all stages to try to achieve three objectives procedurally. First, we wanted to raise the issues and get answers to the questions. Secondly, we wanted to have the debate at a proper time when it could be heard and reported and people such as the Leader of the House could be present. Thirdly, we wanted to be able to vote at the end of the relevant debate. We have managed to achieve that, if through a rather unusual device. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his assistance.

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. His motives were as he has stated, and I supported them. He has brought about a most desirable outcome. I hope that hon. Members will not think that I am being churlish if I do not give way much more, because I want to allow other hon. Members to participate.
	I have taken the liberty of saying that this is a serious matter. I have spoken many times on the Bill and I have advanced the generality of my argument against it. I shall not repeat that today, because those who are interested know why I am against it. I oppose especially the manner of its enactment.
	The Lords messages mentioned in the motion are the amendments that will come from the other place. The plain truth is that we have no idea of the weight or the content of those messages. That being so, we cannot tell whether the proposed ending at 7 pm on Thursday 13 December is reasonable. We are asked to assume that it is, but nobody—not even Government Front Benchers—can say that it is because we will not know what the messages are until the Lords delivers them.
	Another related point is that it is important that those institutions outside the House with real concerns about the Bill—I hope that Government Front Benchers will understand that there are many of those—should have an opportunity properly to make their representations on the amendments as they come from the other place, and as they go back and forth. The procedure that we would adopt under the business motion would actively prevent that from happening, and that is wrong.
	We have been told by the Minister—I am not sure that he intended to be quite as candid as he was—that we would have a timetable motion to govern the process of business on the messages. He will realise that the nature of the timetable—and, indeed, the nature of today's business motion—cannot properly be determined until we know the number, weight and content of the Lords messages. In reality, the timetable and the motion should not be laid until the messages are identified. In any event, the timetable will be shaped by the business motion, rather than the other way round. A timetable should be drawn so as to ensure that the House has a proper opportunity to debate the legislation, and the business motion should reflect the time needed. In fact, the timetable will be the subject of the artificial constraint imposed by the business motion.
	Another point concerns the statutory instruments. The Minister told us last night—it was fair of him to do so—that secondary legislation would be introduced, pursuant to the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal and I made the point that the documents will already be in existence, albeit that they will be called drafts. If the Minister had wanted to, he could have laid those documents in the Library—he still could—or read them out in extenso, although you might stop him, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In any event, the House could be told the contents of the statutory instruments. It is unsatisfactory that we should not know those contents or be able to discuss them before we determine the end date. The statutory instruments may be offensive in themselves. Indeed, they may be so offensive that we might not want the Bill to pass at all. That is a point that we cannot judge until we see the statutory instrument, and we shall not see that until we are given an end date.
	From time to time last night, I approached the debate with a certain levity, as did other hon. Members. It was a fine occasion. I enjoyed it, and I think that other hon. Members did too. However, this is a very serious matter. Although I have not always been able to secure the support of Conservative Front-Bench Members, I have consistently opposed the Bill because it seriously abrogates legal and civil rights.
	Sometimes a case can be made for abrogating such rights, and I am prepared to accept that there may be a case for some abrogation in respect of some parts of the Bill. However, no such case can be made for the Bill in its entirety. If the Government are going to abrogate civil, legal and political rights, they must do so in the proper way, with full and proper discussion in Parliament.
	The House will vote on the business motion later, and I do not suppose that Labour Members will support us on the matter. However, in the Division Lobby they will have an opportunity—which I hope they will take—to say to Ministers, "Look, my friends, what we are doing is wrong. What is more, we must not do it again." If they do that, the action taken by Liberal Democrat Members last night, which I supported, and the words spoken in this debate will have been worthwhile. A very important principle is at stake. We neglect it at the country's peril, and in breach of the duties that we owe our constituents.

Paul Tyler: I begin by expressing my gratitude to hon. Members of all parties. Hansard shows that the motion that I put to the House at 12.52 this morning was passed nem. con. I am grateful to all hon. Members for allowing the House to use that safety valve. There are not many safety valves left now, but hon. Members' response to my motion was very helpful.
	As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, the result is that we have brought out of the dark obscurity of the early hours of the morning into the relatively bright light of prime-time business some extremely important issues. It would be improper to refer to any of the discussion that took place after the motion was passed. Even though the present Bill is not likely to be retrospective, I suspect that the Home Office, and the Home Secretary, in their current mood, would have me locked up if I referred to any matters discussed in private session.
	As was said last night, I do not believe that any Member of this House or the other place is not committed to effective measures to deal with terrorism. There was some suggestion, or spin, that anyone who resisted the business motion was somehow against the emergency measures needed to deal with terrorism. That is a canard, and it is not fair on the Labour Members of the two Houses—let alone anyone else—who have major misgivings about the Bill and the way that it has been handled. Our lack of wholehearted, comprehensive and unquestioning commitment to the handling of the Bill and all of its contents does not mean that we are not committed to the defeat of international terrorism.
	Another advantage of bringing the matter before the House in prime time is that we have the pleasure of the company of the Leader of the House, who will recognise the text that I am about to quote. I hope that the Minister who will reply to the debate found that the sampler above his bed—when he finally got there in the early hours—still carried the motto, written in proper, traditional Victorian woven script, "Good government and effective scrutiny go together."
	The Leader of the House said that to the Hansard Society on 12 July. He added that it was part of the exercise of achieving good government that this House and the other place must undertake their scrutiny roles with responsibility and proper dispatch. That is why it is so extraordinary that in the circumstances already described, the House is being asked to prejudge, in effect, the validity and value of amendments coming from another place. We do not know how substantial they will be.
	In previous Parliaments, it may have been possible for Ministers in the House of Commons to take the view that the opinions of people in the House of Lords could be discarded. However, the first of this Government's reforms of Parliament has given the Lords a new legitimacy. It is only right, therefore, that we take more notice of what the House of Lords says on matters such as this.
	Moreover, the Leader of the House told us a few weeks ago that he thought that the House of Lords in its present form was so good that he was prepared to countenance a substantial number of appointed members in the second phase of reform. That gives additional legitimacy to the House of Lords.
	We cannot therefore prejudge that what we get from the other place can be discarded because it has no value or validity. We cannot assume in advance that the amendments that the House of Lords has not even tabled yet will not be valid. Indeed, Labour Members in the other place may be disposed to accept some of those amendments, which makes it very important that we do not tie ourselves down to a business motion, in the format that is before the House today, that prejudges that issue.

John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the business managers of both Opposition parties could have come to an accommodation with the Government to ensure proper opportunities for the discussion of Lords amendments without interfering with what remains of the Government's programme?

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that that offer was made, informally, through the usual channels, and I shall return to how we could have found more time to do what he suggested.
	It is critical for the House to know what amendments will come from another place before we tie ourselves to a programme. Those amendments themselves can be amended, and we need time to assess whether they can be improved still further and thereby achieve the sort of compromise that many hon. Members want. However, the other place may complete its scrutiny only of the Bill late on Tuesday night. We will be able to see the amendments that are tabled then and on the subsequent day, so the opportunity for intelligent amendment—informed by people in the House and outside it, as was noted earlier and, indeed, last night—will be limited. The Bill is big, and covers many issues, and such amendment is very important.
	There may be circumstances in which the Government are disposed to accept all the amendments that come from the other place. If so, why do they not accept them now?
	That would save the House a lot of trouble, but we must assume that the Government will not accept them all, but resist some. However, if they are going to accept the amendments passed in the other place, the sooner they tell us which they will accept, the better. That will allow us to deal with the amendments more expeditiously.
	For the moment, I shall assume that the Government will dig in their heels. The indications, from the Home Secretary down, are that that is the Government's mood. In those circumstances, hon. Members have a responsibility to provide proper and careful scrutiny of the improvements that have been suggested. We do not want to put on to the statute book legislation of this importance that is full of loopholes and problems.
	Moreover, as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, that is not the whole story. As its name implies, secondary legislation is secondary to primary legislation. We cannot know how apt, apposite and effective that secondary legislation is until we know what the primary legislation is. We cannot know how legitimate, proper and in order the secondary amendments are until we see what amendments come back from the Lords. We need to know the reaction of Ministers. Will they be prepared to accept some amendments, will they want to amend others, and will the House come to the view that compromise on some is a possibility?
	That was clearly spelt out in the watches of last night. The Parliamentary Secretary was honest enough to say that there is a whole package of secondary legislation to follow. We cannot take a view about the legitimacy of such legislation until we have seen the amendments to the original legislation.
	As you will have heard last night, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are views about the Bill on both sides of the House. It is an unusual Bill. The unkind might refer to it as a ragbag; I have described it as the good, the bad and the downright ugly. More charitably, it could be called a portmanteau Bill. It certainly covers a huge range of issues of varying urgency and impact upon basic civil liberties and human rights. Inevitably, parts of it raise different issues with different people. It is unusual in that respect, because there are so many aspects to its clauses. In those circumstances, it is not unnatural for Members of the other House, let alone Members of this one, to respond differently to its different parts.
	The legislation that is put before us is often not only short but directly focused and Members on both sides can take a broad-band approach to it. They know where they are on a Bill's basic issues and how they will respond to its different parts. That is not the case with this Bill. As happens often in debates in the other place, there has been a judicial review of parts of the Bill, independent of party politics. The bishops have had a view about specific aspects, although it would not be proper for me to go into detail. It is equally true that some distinguished and experienced Members of the Labour party in the other place have major misgivings about parts of the Bill.
	The Leader of the House, no less, has been saying how important it is for the revising second Chamber of this Parliament to be independent of Government and to have expertise and experience to bring to its responsibilities. As we have in this place skimped Report and had no Third Reading debate, it is not unnatural that we have to rely on our colleagues at the other end of the building to do some careful detailed scrutiny of these issues. It would be outrageous if, after all the good work that they had done on our behalf, we then said, "We don't care what they said. Let's tear it up and get on with the job." That would be a negation of the responsibility of Parliament which, the Leader of the House has frequently reminded us, lies upon our shoulders.
	We still do not know what will happen under the business motion. Will there be a ping-pong situation? Will there be an opportunity for sensible people to sit down and achieve some compromise, perhaps even taking out of the Bill those issues that are not urgent and with which it is not necessary to deal immediately? My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) referred last night to issues that predate the terrorist attacks on 11 September. They cannot be regarded as so urgent as to be necessary now.
	It was apparent from the way in which the debate began to develop last night that there is no parliamentary imperative, let alone an outside imperative. We have yet to hear anyone say that the Bill must reach the statute book next week or terrorists will attack on Christmas day. It is outrageous for anyone to pretend that we must have the Bill then, to the day.
	I have pointed out to the Leader of the House that he unexpectedly gave us an extra day for the Christmas recess. Most of us knew that we were going to be here on Thursday 20 December, and then he told us that we were to rise on Wednesday 19 December. So there is room for shunting; we can find more time.
	What imperative demands that we must complete all our study of, and responsibility for, the Bill by the night of 13 December, given that it is complex, contentious and that there is opposition to it within Government ranks in both Houses? There is one date that makes that essential, but it is nothing to do with Parliament, the quality of the Bill or the opposition to it in either House. It is simply that on 14 December, the Prime Minister is due to go to the European summit at Laeken in Belgium. He wants to take in his back pocket a Christmas present from the Houses of Parliament and say, "Look what a good boy am I. I am getting tough on terrorism. I have a derogation from my Parliament on the European convention of human rights. Why don't you?" That is what it is all about.
	It is the Prime Minister's imperative, for political reasons. It is not to improve the legislation or to put on the statute book a measure of which we will be proud in years to come and which we will know was the right response to an emergency. This will be a tawdry Act because it has been dealt with in a tawdry fashion.

Richard Shepherd: I have been truly amazed by the moderation shown by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), Liberal Democrat Front Benchers and my own. This is a monstrous process. Their decent evaluation of whether there is merit in all the contentions in the Bill has been exemplary. In point of fact, the argument on many of the clauses has never pointed to how they relate to the special new circumstances that have arisen since 11 September that mean that this country's very survival is at risk.
	I object strongly to this process. I was very grateful when your predecessor in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, confirmed that last night was the first time since 1958 that the House has sat in secrecy, and it should be on a measure such as this. That is consonant with the Government's argument that we are in a state of emergency. That was the proposition put by the Home Secretary, who has indicated that he will not yield in the Lords.
	I have no doubt what the motion means. The Government are on a journey of coercion. They are saying to the Lords as best they can—we will be the puppets, the shadow, in this parliamentary process—"You will deliver us this Bill in the shape that we require it by a certain date." They have no power to enforce that, but I saw the Lords yield during the seven times that the European Parliamentary Elections Bill ping-ponged between this place and the other. Their Lordships blinked. Anyone who has taken the most casual glance at the proceedings of the other place will know that they have had the leisure and appropriate time to discuss and weigh up important and entire issues. The Government have tried to drive through this monstrous piece of legislation, unjustified in so many of its particulars, in 16 hours, including all the time needed for votes.
	I am amazed that the Government troubled with the House of Commons. They have set a new record in deeming that which has not happened to have happened. I am surprised that they did not reach into their armoury, having set a precedent in the constitutional history of this country, and have the House declare—there are enough willing Labour Members for them to do so—that this process is taking place without debate. We are very close to such a situation.
	I hope that this coercive measure fails. I am mindful that we have not been allowed a reasonable amount of time in which to discuss matters such as habeas corpus, internment, new religious hatred laws and the third pillar of Maastricht. We have had 14 minutes, with a 90-minute order, directly to translate into British laws a change in our criminal laws that affects our constituents and that has been constructed out of a secret meeting somewhere on the continent. That is monstrous. We are prepared to suspend habeas corpus and to bring in internment in this country.
	I am anxious about this vast portmanteau Bill, which has imported a whole series of concepts that have no relationship—certainly none has been demonstrated—to the dangerous circumstances that arose on 11 September. I am surprised only that the Home Secretary did not grasp the opportunity to deliver some of the contentions of the Auld report and to take away our right to trial by jury. The Bill would have provided a good opportunity.
	I want the world outside to know what has gone on in this House of Commons: without knowing about the weight, import, number or seriousness of Lords provisions, motions such as this are hung in front of us, late at night, in secrecy—as if we were in wartime circumstances—with the microphones turned off, with one good, loyal citizen in the Public Gallery waving goodbye as we close down the House of Commons to outsiders. [Interruption.] It is said that the Liberal Democrats closed down the House, but they could not do that. It is the duty of the Government to secure the business of the House and the country. Hon. Members should reflect on the purpose of this Chamber.
	The motion demonstrates that we are nothing. I do not understand why Labour Members cannot stand up for things that we have believed in all our lives, such as habeas corpus, one of the most important features in banishing slavery from these shores.

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Shepherd: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not. I am mindful of the time constraints, because there will, of course, be a closure motion.
	We can push away consideration of important matters. We do not know the terms of the guillotine motion. The guillotine that the Government will impose next week will tell us whether they will even allow us to have a serious discussion of the serious amendments that we were unable to debate when the Bill was previously before the House.
	If the country thinks that its liberties are defended by this Chamber, it is very, very wrong. I want liberty to be defended by this Chamber, but now we are looking to an appointed House—an appointed House: what shame!—to make and defend the liberties and traditions of our country. That is why I oppose this abysmal, outrageous motion. It is all part of the attempt to create a climate in which people believe that this country is in such a desperate plight that the very life of the nation is under threat. It is not. No one believes that.
	We believe in proper, targeted, particularised measures to supplement those that already exist. The Government have no sense of country, and in one real sense, terrorism wins a significant battle with this form of legislation. I wish that the House would open up and recognise what we have become: we are nothing when Governments can jig around with their majority, with no debate on the substance of the basic freedoms for which this House came into existence. That is the purpose of the House but the Government will not permit its achievement.

Teddy Taylor: I hope that the House will reflect on the superb sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). We are doing something significant. Sadly, I do not have the same credibility as those Members who have already spoken as I was not here last night. I was speaking at a populist gathering in London that went on until a late hour. However, through the brilliance of the House of Commons, I have been able to read the Hansard report of the debate that took place last night. In fairness, we should give credit to Hansard for recording everything that took place before the House went into private session.
	I have some brief points. I hope that the House of Commons will appreciate that the Bill is desperately important; it is of great significance. When we consider that all the changes that we are making in relation to the third pillar of Maastricht were discussed in 12 minutes in this place, we realise that we are treating legislation with contempt. The time taken to push the measure through shows that we are not taking democracy seriously. I fear that the motion shows that, too.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that although we hold opposite views on Maastricht and the third pillar, we share precisely the same views on the means that the Government are using to pass measures with no debate in the House of Commons? Does not the fact that we can stand together on that show exactly how desperate the Government have become?

Teddy Taylor: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend agrees with me, as I have been complaining for many, many years—in fact, since 1973—about the vicious and spiteful way in which Governments of both parties have forced through European legislation. I know that he would have been no part of that. Certainly, something significant has happened.
	We should also seriously consider the fact that the motion means that we cannot have adequate debate. We are talking about being limited to only two and a half parliamentary days. We do not know what other business will be proposed during that time. If the votes take place after 10 o'clock, it will not be possible to proceed with them. There would have to be a deferred vote on the following Wednesday, which would mean that the Government could not complete their timetable. Unless there is a tightly drawn timetable motion, it will be impossible to hold the relevant debates.
	The House should consider whether the motion will help the passage of the Bill. I have noticed that, as a result of all the recent changes, whereas the Lords used to be a quiet and inoffensive body, it now appears to take its democratic responsibilities more seriously. Will we help to get the measure through and create the good will that the Government obviously require if we proceed as we are doing?
	We are treating the House of Commons with contempt, forcing through massive legislation with no proper discussion. What the Government are doing will create more trouble; it will not solve problems. I certainly appreciate that the Government are anxious to pass measures on security speedily, but what they are doing is insulting to our democratic traditions and may result in their not getting legislation that they particularly want.
	There is not enough time properly to consider the measure or discuss Lords amendments properly. I fear that the result will not be to help pass the measure but a lack of good will.
	Finally, I hope that Members will think about what happened at the last general election. The vital aspect of that election was not who won, whether Labour, Conservative or Liberal. It was the massive number of people who did not vote. Among younger people, there was not even the slightest interest in politics. The way that we carry on is driving people away from their democratic responsibilities.
	When people realise how we forced through this massive, important measure in such an appalling way, they will feel that there is little point in the democratic process. The House should think about the massive strike action taken by the voters. If we treat democracy with contempt, we shall simply add to that process and there will be less participation in democracy.
	I hope that the House will think about those matters because what we are doing today will not help. It will create more problems, more confusions and more delay.

Norman Baker: It is good to see you back in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, for a less eventful sitting than when you last occupied it. It is, of course, an irony that we seem almost to have time aplenty to discuss a motion that contains little of substance, whereas we had almost no time at all to debate a huge raft of terribly important and controversial provisions that will affect this country for many years to come.
	The Government told us that the allocation of time was such that they could spare no more time to debate the Bill in Committee, or on Report or Third Reading, yet by the ingenuity of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), we have managed to find an extra hour or so and, indeed, a couple of hours of Government time last night to debate what was called a piffling motion. One wonders why the Government were not able to find more time to debate the Bill, and questions should be asked about that.
	At the beginning of the debate last night, the Parliamentary Secretary—who has his back turned to me—was, I am afraid, left alone on the Treasury Bench through no fault of his own. With the best will in the world, the hon. Gentleman—for whom I have a good deal of respect—is not able to assess whether the motion is adequate because he is not over-familiar with the Bill. One has to have gone through the Bill in detail to understand exactly whether the motion is appropriate and what is likely to happen in the other place. I should have thought that a Home Office Minister might have taken the trouble to stay with him on the Treasury Bench last night to advise him, but that was not the case.
	It was also a great pity that the motion seems to have been drafted by members of the Government, whose duty is to get business through the House, rather than by those who may have anything important to say about the Bill and who want to reflect on the concerns that hon. Members on both sides of the House have about it.

Simon Hughes: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the other criticisms that has still not been remedied—perhaps the Minister will help us in his winding-up speech—is that we still do not have any indication of the timetable under the motion. A further guillotine motion may well be imposed on debate next week. If we at least knew the structure of next week, we might be somewhat better off, but that is another secret not so far revealed to hon. Members, let alone Opposition Members.

Norman Baker: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, the only certainty that we have is the motion. We have no certainty about the Bill's consideration in the House of Lords; about whether Labour peers will table amendments; or about whether the Government will accept any amendment. We have no certainty about the timing in the House of Commons; about any guillotine motion; or about what interested external groups will have to say about the Bill. We have no certainty about anything, apart from the fact that the Government want to railroad the Bill through the House, irrespective of the outcome in the other place. That is the only certainty about which the Government seem to be interested.
	I suspect that a good number of amendments will come from the other place. If the House of Lords is doing its job properly, it will want properly to reflect on the fact that this House has not been able to consider whole swathes of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Aldridge- Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) correctly said. I pay tribute to him for the conviction and passion with which he speaks on such issues.
	For example, part 11, on the retention of communications data, was not discussed for one minute in the House, yet it contains huge powers that will allow the Home Secretary to accumulate data in pursuit of not simply terrorists, but those involved in any criminal activity under clause 101(5)(b). That is a matter of profound importance, but we had not one minute to discuss it.
	I had only one and a half minutes in which to discuss the transportation of nuclear material, and we are entitled to know more about that. The House spent only one and a half minutes on that part of the Bill, and we spent very little time on a range of other issues. We spent barely enough time even on the topics that we did discuss—whether it was Ministry of Defence police or face masks.
	I contrast that with the time that we have had to debate the Proceeds of Crime Bill in Committee. That Bill has been properly timetabled, and there have been good debates. To be fair to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), when the Opposition Members who serve on that Committee have asked him whether he has thought about an issue, he has said, "No, I haven't, but it's a good point and I'll go away and consider it." Ministers have not had the opportunity to do that with this Bill because the Opposition have not been able to ask, "Have you thought about this sentence?"

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend may not have had a chance to read this yet, but I am sure that the Minister will be aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights produced its second report on the Bill this morning and has found many of the Government's concessions to be inadequate. It has suggested that the Bill needs to amended in many other ways. With a week to go, all parties in both Houses say that the Bill is inadequate, especially in its human rights aspects. That report has not yet been considered. Does my hon. Friend agree that such Committees were set up to give advice, but it seems that there will be no chance to take that Committee's advice, let alone to act on it?

Norman Baker: My hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point. What are those Committees for? I serve on the Human Rights Committee, as does the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, and it has said that it is very worried about the Bill and that, in certain aspects, it is inconsistent with the European convention on human rights. What are the Government doing about that? They have tabled no amendments to deal with those issues. Instead, the Bill is steamrollered through the House. Those Committees seem to be a sop, so that the Government can say that they exist, that they are wonderful and that they are committed to human rights. However, when they propose something that the Government do not like, they are completely swept out of the way.
	Worse than that, when the House had a debate of sorts—was it in Committee, or on Report or Third Reading?—a Minister told us that debate and voting were shenanigans and that we were wasting time. What are we here for if not to debate and vote? It seems as though the Government want to close things down and run through their business as soon as possible and that they think the Opposition are a bit of nuisance and wish they would go away. The Bill will not go away. It is very controversial, and its consequences will be seen throughout the land if the Government do not listen.
	The Government still have time to listen to the House of Lords and to Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members and—dare I say?—their own Back Benchers. Let us not forget that the gloss of support does not extend to Labour Back Benchers. They are just as unhappy with the Bill as Opposition Members. If the Government have any sense, even at this late stage, they will make more time for the Bill and listen to some of the comments that hon. Members have made.

Greg Knight: I shall be brief. We have heard some extremely powerful arguments during the debate, but exclusively from Opposition Members. The Government know that there is no satisfactory answer to many of the points that have been made. Of course, we do not know what Lords messages will be received, but we do know that, at worst, the motion could be oppressive and, at best, it is premature, and we shall divide the House.

Stephen Twigg: Hon. Members raised a number of issues last night, early this morning and this afternoon, and I shall do my best to deal with them clearly and succinctly, although there has been rather more heat than light during the debate, especially last night and in the early hours of this morning.
	The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—an hon. Gentleman for whom I have great respect—made an extraordinary contribution this afternoon, in which he questioned the patriotism of Government Members because of the business motion. I hope that, on reflection, he will accept that his remarks were over the top and deeply offensive.
	The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) referred in his closing remarks to the disconnection between the public and the House and, in particular, to the disconnection between young people and politics. I can think of nothing more that would switch off young people from politics than the scenes that we witnessed in the Chamber in the early hours of this morning, with the pathetic use of filibustering tactics by the Liberal Democrats and some Conservative Back Benchers.
	I should like to address the specific points that have been raised. First, several hon. Members have suggested that the Divisions on matters relating to the Lords messages might be deferred. I can absolutely reassure the House that that would not be the case. The Sessional Order that relates to the deferral of Divisions is very clear. It states that Divisions on questions relating to
	"motions . . . in the course of proceedings on bills"
	and on a number of other matters will not be deferred, so there will not be a deferred Division.
	We had a somewhat protracted discussion at the beginning of last night's proceedings about the meaning of the word "Thursday" and how long next Thursday will last. The answer is very much as suggested by several Opposition Members: Thursday could well continue beyond that which we would conventionally understand Thursday to be. Thursday will continue either until both Houses have agreed to an Act and Royal Assent has been notified or until it is clear that no agreement can be reached. I very much hope that the House will not break the previous record established during the consideration of the Coercion Bill in 1881, when the day lasted for 41 and a half hours. It appears that compromise is possible, so Thursday may be extended.
	That connects to my third point, which is about the time available for debate. Several Opposition Members have raised the reasonable concern that there should be sufficient time on the Floor of the House to debate the Lords messages. In particular, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) mentioned that issue and, when he intervened last night, I said that there would be a supplementary programme motion. It will obviously be drafted once we have received the messages from the Lords and in the light of the number of amendments that are before the House. The House will decide on that motion and, although I can give no guarantees, I will pass to those involved in drawing up the motion the concerns that have been expressed in the debate.

Simon Hughes: One of the few certainties that we have is that the Lords expect to finish their Third Reading debate next Tuesday evening. Given that, can the Minister give us any indication as to what, if any, business will be taken here next Tuesday evening if this motion is passed? For example, will we debate a timetable motion then or will it be brought before the House on the Wednesday? After we know what the Lords have sent us on Tuesday evening, will there be an opportunity for all the parties concerned to be able to discuss the issue so that we can have some management of the remaining time if, unhappily, the House agrees to this motion?

Stephen Twigg: Certainly every attempt will be made to ensure that all parties are involved. I made it clear in my opening remarks yesterday that we would not move immediately to discuss the Lords messages on Tuesday night. We would have a printed version, and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal thanked me for that in his contribution. I can give the broad assurance that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) seeks. There will be cross-party involvement in drawing up the programme motion and we will not move immediately to discussion on Tuesday night. We will move to the concrete discussion on Wednesday.

Douglas Hogg: rose—

Stephen Twigg: I do not intend to take any further interventions, because I shall speak for just another five minutes. I took many interventions yesterday and I have promised Members on both sides to respond to the points that have been made in the debate.
	Several hon. Members have mentioned consultation, but I fear that Opposition Members protest rather too much on that point. Some said that they want to have the opportunity to consult outside organisations and, of course, that is extremely important. However, none of us can have failed to have noticed that there has been extensive debate, discussion and consultation since 11 September about the nature of the response. Yes, there is controversy and discussion, but no one can really say that we have not had full debate and an opportunity for outside organisations to influence the proceedings in this House and the other place.
	Several hon. Members referred to secondary legislation, so let me make clear the basis for that. The special meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 20 September set 1 January 2002 as the deadline for implementing the 1995 and 1996 European Union extradition conventions. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is publicly committed to meeting that deadline and actual implementation will follow, as required in the conventions, 90 days later. However, the Home Secretary will want to meet the legislative deadline in the terrorism road map agreed by the Justice and Home Affairs Council.
	Several hon. Members have asked that we make the regulations available publicly in draft. I am advised that they are being finalised and that they will be made available as soon as it is possible to do so, although that is unlikely to be much before they are laid before Parliament. Next week we will, however, be able to provide a summary of the main effects of the regulations on the Extradition Act 1989. In advance of that, the Government's proposals to implement the two conventions can be found in the consultation paper issued in March this year, "The Law on Extradition: A Review".
	The motion on secondary legislation will be required precisely because the House cannot take a view on secondary legislation until the primary legislation is passed. The House, however, has procedures for considering secondary legislation. All measures under the Justice and Home Affairs Council will take place under the affirmative procedure and will therefore be subject to debate.
	Finally, let me say a few words about the conduct of the debate last night and today. Last night, the Liberal Democrats took advantage of parliamentary procedure in an attempt to derail discussion of the Bill. The official Opposition co-operated with the Government to get a sensible solution, but some Conservative Back Benchers joined the Liberal Democrats in resorting to arcane parliamentary procedure to frustrate debate.
	Ironically, the reasons that the Liberal Democrats have given to explain their actions do not stand up. A motion to sit in private does not prevent another motion for closure. Even if the Government were contemplating a tactic of closure, it would have been within the discretion of the Chair whether to allow a such a motion. Therefore, like many outside, I find the tactics of the Liberal Democrats baffling.

William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have listened to the Minister and he has referred to legislation on extradition. He knows perfectly well that the European Union arrest warrant, which was due to be considered and completed on 7 December, cannot be carried through in the way that the Government and the European Council originally intended, because the Government completely fouled up their own legislation two days ago. Furthermore, the measure is subject to a scrutiny reserve. Will the—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a point for debate, not a point of order for the Chair.

Stephen Twigg: I welcome the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) to the debate; it is certainly the first time that I have seen him. Clearly a mention of Europe aroused his instant interest as he sits in his previous position on the Back Benches rather than in his new position on the Front Bench.
	We heard a number of interesting contributions that did not relate directly to the motion. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has become a belated convert to modernisation with his criticism of late-night sittings and late-night discussion of motions. I was struck by the fact that today he was able to say succinctly in 13 minutes what took him more than an hour to say last night. Similarly, of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) managed to say in 12 minutes what it took the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey 34 minutes to say last night. That demonstrates that we have had sufficient time to deal with the motion fully and properly.
	I am pleased to commend the motion to the House. The provisions of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill are a direct response to the changed security situation following the tragedy of 11 September. The powers in the Bill, such as those for the detention of suspect terrorist asylum seekers and for aviation security, are needed on the statute book as soon as possible. I believe that we have got the balance right, enabling debate, scrutiny and consideration in both Houses while seeking to secure the Bill according to the Government's timetable. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.

Question put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 152.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That,
	(1) At the sittings on Tuesday 11th, Wednesday 12th and Thursday 13th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Lords Messages relating to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill have been received; and
	(2) At the sitting on Thursday 13th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.

European Affairs

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Peter Hain: Next week, on 14 and 15 December, the Belgian presidency of the European Union will host the final European Council of the year at Laeken, at which Britain will play a strong role as a European power, now, under the Labour Government, more influential than at any time since we joined the rest of Europe in the early 1970s.
	By co-operating with our fellow members of the EU, Britain gets practical benefits: more jobs, faster economic growth, safer food, cleaner beaches, cleaner air, purer water, less crime and, crucially, better security. In the modern world, our strength as a nation derives from the strength of our partnerships and our alliances. Nations are stronger when working together than when alone. In the modern world, sovereignty shared is sovereignty regained. We should be more confident and get more real about our sovereignty. Does getting more involved in Europe mean that we will give up our sovereignty? No, because there is a difference between giving up and choosing to pool sovereignty because doing so promotes Britain's interests.
	We have already given up our right to do what we like in defending Britain, because we are members of NATO. We already pool sovereignty with the United States of America and others because by doing so Britain has stronger defences. Anyone attacking us invites retaliation from all the NATO nations.

Graham Allen: We are discussing a matter of fundamental interest to our country. Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that although Labour Members are paying great attention to his speech, there is not a single Conservative Back Bencher—

David Heathcoat-Amory: rose—

Graham Allen: Oh, forgive me. I withdraw that remark. One Conservative Back Bencher is present in the Chamber. What does that tell us about the views of the Conservative party?

Peter Hain: I do not want to intrude on the Conservatives' private grief. Presumably, their desire for a truce in their internal civil war over Europe is the reason why all their rabid Back Benchers are away.
	More than 50 years ago, we gave up our right to do as we liked in foreign policy by joining the United Nations. Its Security Council resolutions have the force of international law, and everyone, including Britain, has to respect them, but as a permanent member of the Security Council we can make the laws. By pooling sovereignty, the British people have greater influence in building a safer, more stable world.

Michael Trend: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman will reply to the debate later, but why not?

Michael Trend: Perhaps the Minister might care to comment on the fact that had the Government not lost control of the business last night and today, the start of this debate would not have coincided with the meeting of the 1922 Committee. That is why Conservative Members are not here.

Peter Hain: I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak, so I shall be reluctant to take any more interventions from Conservatives, especially interventions of that quality.
	Pooling sovereignty can entail compromises. That is sometimes hard for some commentators and politicians to understand, but real people know that in real life we cannot always get exactly what we want, and nor can other countries in those international bodies. We can better advance British interests by being right at the centre of NATO, the UN and, indeed, the EU.
	In recent weeks, the EU has acted with great resolve and rapidity to tackle the threat of terrorism. Already we have agreed that there will be a common European arrest warrant, a common definition of terrorist offences and common measures to freeze the assets of terrorist suspects. None of those measures could have been achieved outside the EU. By co-operating with other countries we strengthen our defences against terrorism—an evil that knows no national boundaries.
	There is more to do. We have to boost co-operation between our national law enforcement and counter- terrorist agencies, approve without delay the Commission's proposals to improve air transport security, and ensure that all member states ratify the UN convention on the suppression of the financing of terrorism and strengthen their domestic legislation. The EU has emerged as a key player in the global fight against terrorism. The natural alliance between the countries of north America and Europe is at the core of the international coalition.
	At Laeken, we have the opportunity to show once again the strength of the EU's backing for the current military campaign and to renew our commitment to the diplomatic and humanitarian tasks, which are just as vital if we are to defeat the terrorist threat. The signing in Bonn this morning of the agreement on Afghanistan's future is a significant achievement. We pay tribute to the UN and to the Afghan leaders—men and women—who have grasped the opportunity to begin to rebuild their country. It is a victory for the international coalition against terrorism. A stable Afghanistan with a broad-based Government is as important to our own security as it is to the Afghan people, who have been liberated from the clutches of the odious Taliban. At Laeken we shall reaffirm our support for the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General and Lakhdar Brahimi to deliver on today's deal and build a broad-based, multi-ethnic Government in Afghanistan.

Jenny Tonge: Is it not a little early to say that we have a stable Afghanistan?

Peter Hain: I did not say that the job was finished, but the hon. Lady, for whom in other respects I have considerable respect, should recognise that many of her arguments in relation to the international coalition's action in Afghanistan have been proved wrong. The people of Afghanistan—including and especially women—are enjoying greater freedom than they have had for many a long decade.
	Between us, EU member states and the Commission have already committed 320 million euros to the international humanitarian effort in and around Afghanistan, and the EU will have a continuing commitment to the region. Our kind of Europe has a collective duty to act as a more effective force for good in the world, so two years ago my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Chirac launched a British-French initiative on security and defence that the EU has been developing ever since.
	In the aftermath of 11 September, it is all the more important to underpin our security with the capacity to carry out humanitarian and peacekeeping tasks where NATO as a whole is not involved. Far from weakening NATO, as some have alleged, we have an opportunity to strengthen NATO by strengthening the capabilities of EU member states.

Gordon Prentice: The fact that there is a crisis in the aerospace sector is widely recognised, and today aerospace workers lobbied the House of Commons. Will the European Governments at Laeken address that crisis in aerospace industries throughout the EU? Might consideration be given to bringing forward orders that have already been committed for the A400M—the military version of the Airbus? That would do a great deal to help us in the north-west.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend speaks forcefully, as always, on behalf of his constituents, and I know that many hon. Members have interests in the aerospace industry. Those points will be taken on board because we want to ensure that Airbus Industrie has a positive future—I think that it builds the best aeroplanes in the world. Given the difficulties it has already experienced, the aerospace industry overall should take advantage of all the opportunities that might lie ahead.
	The European security and defence capability has been welcomed by President Bush, by all NATO members, by all candidate countries, and by almost everyone else across the world—except that fount of all wisdom, today's Conservative party.
	I especially welcome Ankara's confirmation this week of support for Turkish participation in European defence—an outcome that our officials and my right hon. the Foreign Secretary have worked hard to secure. At Laeken, we expect to be able to draw the realistic conclusion that the EU is now able to conduct some crisis management operations, and will be in a position to take on increasingly demanding operations as the assets and capabilities at our disposal increase. However, our best weapon in the fight against terrorism is international solidarity. Alongside existing EU members, applicants for admission to the EU have backed the international coalition and the anti-terrorist measures agreed by the EU.
	Britain has long been a champion of enlargement. We used our presidency in 1998 to launch negotiations for the first set of six applicant countries. Since then, we have pushed for and secured rapid progress. As a result, 12 countries are now negotiating their accession. A 13th—Turkey—has been confirmed as a candidate. Our Prime Minister was the first European leader to call for the first new member states to be admitted in time for the 2004 European parliamentary elections. At the Gothenburg European Council in June, that objective was agreed. At Laeken, in 10 days' time, we shall take the matter further forward. All 10 of the candidate countries with target accession dates by 2004 have now closed 19 or more chapters of the 30 that make up the EU acquis.
	The Commission's recent strategy paper confirms that we are on track for our goal of completing negotiations with the best prepared candidates by the end of next year. As the paper reaffirms, while a political settlement of Cyprus's problems is plainly desirable, it is not a pre-condition for that country's entry to the EU. Only yesterday, the first meeting between the leaders of the two Cypriot communities agreed to direct talks. We continue to support a just, viable and lasting settlement to the Cyprus problem.
	With the Bill having passed through this place and having completed consideration in Committee in the other place, we are now on target to ratify the Nice treaty, which is essential for enlargement to proceed. At the Nice summit a year ago, and for the first time since we joined the common market in 1973, we won an increase in Britain's voting weight relative to the smaller countries. We succeeded in providing for a smaller and more efficient Commission. We secured more qualified majority voting in areas where the UK's interest lies in reform and change while preserving our ability to defend the status quo and vital national interests where that is necessary.

Gisela Stuart: I am delighted that qualified majority voting will help us to reach consensus but still protect our vital interests. In respect of the prospectus directive, which affects the financial services interests of the City of London, does my right hon. Friend agree that what is taking place in London is larger than what is taking place in the rest of Europe? Qualified majority voting might result in the loss of our competitive advantage, and that would not be in our interests.

Peter Hain: I know that my hon. Friend is extremely knowledgeable and an expert on the EU, but I am not sure that she is right in this instance.
	At Nice, we showed also that Britain is in the vanguard of reform and change in the EU. In the 12 months since Nice, the EU has agreed other practical measures that will directly benefit British citizens. These include new rules to speed up procedures for returning illegally abducted children home, new measures to limit emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and ammonia to make cleaner the air that we breathe and new airline safety measures so that we can fly the European skies more safely. Further practical benefits are in the pipeline for next year—again with British influence.
	There will be a new package of measures to liberalise the EU telecommunications market, which will increase consumer choice and should help to drive down phone bills. A new Community patent will encourage innovation and make it easier for business to protect intellectual property rights quickly, reliably and cheaply. There are measures to open up the pensions market so that people can shop around Europe for the best deals.
	None of those measures could conceivably be implemented so quickly and efficiently without the familiar structures and procedures of the EU. They will be of immediate and obvious benefit to all our citizens.
	Several Members have raised with us the case of 12 British citizens who are being detained in Greece following their arrest near a military base.

Michael Connarty: My right hon. Friend has listed all the benefits of the treaty of Nice, and I would applaud each one of them. Unanimity seems to have been denied by the Irish referendum, and my Irish colleagues tell me that it may be denied if a second referendum is held. Can we proceed to enlargement without the treaty of Nice being approved by all the present members of the EU?

Peter Hain: In practical terms, the answer is no. The Nice treaty is the only realistic route to enlargement, at least on anything like the timetable that we have agreed. In practical terms, we could not proceed without a similar treaty.

Ian Davidson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Peter Hain: I am trying to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty). I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) is an addict when it comes to these matters, and I shall come to him in a moment.
	The Nice treaty needs to be ratified by the House; otherwise, we shall deny all our friends in Cyprus, Malta, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and all the other accession states the status in the EU that they have so desperately striven to secure. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok, who is about to interrupt me, will support the treaty and the Government in the negotiations.

Ian Davidson: May I reassure my right hon. Friend that I am certainly not an addict? I am not nearly as sad as that. However, I take an interest in the plight of small countries. Is it the Government's position that they respect the decision made by the Irish people in a referendum, or is Britain pressurising Ireland to conduct a further referendum? Will he make it absolutely clear what Britain's position is on this matter?

Peter Hain: I am delighted to do so. Yes, we respect the Irish people's verdict; no, we are not pressuring the Irish Government to do anything. On the contrary, the Irish Government have come to us and our fellow European member states. They have said that they wish to offer advice, having further consulted their own people to ascertain whether there are any further assurances from the EU, and especially the European Council, that might enable another referendum to be called. The Irish people can then be invited to make up their own mind, as was done—

William Cash: Blackmail.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman has been told by his leader to keep quiet as the shadow Attorney-General. He is not supposed to say anything on Europe, but he says "blackmail" from the Opposition Back Benches. When the Conservative Government whom he supported—well, sometimes; I am not sure whether he supported them on this matter—were in office the Danes initially rejected the Maastricht treaty in a referendum. On a further referendum, they were given assurances that enabled them to vote again—

William Cash: Blackmail.

Peter Hain: I think that it is intelligent to seek reassurances on the matters that one is worried about and to consider the matter again. If the Irish choose to do that, they will have our support.
	I return to my point about the British citizens who are detained in Greece following their arrest near a military airbase. I can assure the House that our officials in London and at the British embassy in Athens are providing the detainees with the consular assistance that they need, and are working closely with the Greek authorities to expedite the case.
	The rapid pace of change in the world means that we in Europe cannot afford to stand still. Reform is not merely desirable, it is a survival strategy. At Nice, member states agreed to take the process of reform further forward at another intergovernmental conference, to take place in 2004. At Laeken, we shall agree the remit of a convention under which a wide-ranging debate will be held on the future of Europe in preparation for the intergovernmental conference.

Colin Challen: Does my right hon. Friend think that we are exercising change at the right speed, given that the general public are perhaps rather disenchanted with the EU? Given the turnout at the last European elections and the fact that possibly there is only one referendum every generation, should we be doing more to address these issues?

Peter Hain: I agree. We are doing more. At the convention launched at the Laeken summit the weekend after next and at the following IGC we will address the key objective of closing the gap between the leaders and citizens of Europe.
	The House will welcome the fact that its direct participation in the convention is already assured. Two Parliamentarians from each member state will be members. The rest of the convention will consist of one representative from each Government, 16 Members of the European Parliament and one representative from the College of Commissioners. The candidate countries will also participate. We expect the convention to address fundamental questions, such as how to demarcate the powers of the European Union and the member states; how to ensure that co-operation in the EU remains rooted in democratic legitimacy; and how to simplify the treaties so that citizens can better understand and appreciate what the EU does in their name—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen).
	We welcome a debate to clarify who does what. We also welcome the simplification of treaties so that people can understand them, as I have sought to do in a new booklet summarising them in 300 words; it was published last night and I am happy to send a copy to every Member of Parliament who wants one. In addition, we want to involve national Parliaments more. All of that is a British agenda, which is now being accepted by our colleagues across the EU.

Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend talked about simplifying the treaties; lawyers get a bit worried when they hear such talk. Will the simplified treaties be legal documents and, if so, will the European Court of Justice adjudicate on them?

Peter Hain: I am always reluctant to cross swords with my right hon. Friend who is an expert, not just on Europe, but on the treaties in particular. In fact, I venture to suggest that he knows a lot more about them than I do. He makes a legitimate point; there will be a disclaimer on the simplified directive and the treaties stating that they cannot be quoted in a court of law because they are a lay person's guide; I am sure that my right hon. Friend will welcome that.
	The convention will not take decisions on the future of Europe; that task properly belongs to the Governments of the member states taking part in the IGC. The Governments of nation states will take that decision; in Britain it will be subject, as ever, to the final word of Parliament.

Angus Robertson: Returning to the convention and UK representation, will the Minister share with the House his thoughts on the make-up of the UK delegation? He will be aware that the German lander will be represented by the upper House of the German Parliament. He said that it is vital that national Parliaments are involved. Does he agree that the national Parliaments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be represented directly on the convention delegation?

Peter Hain: No, I do not; that is the simple answer. Two representatives of the House of Commons are provided for under the provisional agreement, which will be finalised at Laeken. European policy is a reserved matter for the House. I recently had the privilege of being invited to the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament and was pleased to answer its questions. I see myself working in partnership with that Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly to make sure that the vision that we project in Europe is as inclusive as possible. It would not be possible to have direct representation by all the lander, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and so on in the convention unless it was much larger than is being contemplated.

William Cash: As the Minister will know, I have certain responsibilities for the interpretation of treaties and other responsibilities for legal advice to the House. In the context of the question asked by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), the Minister is right that those matters are reserved. However, I remember crossing swords with the late Secretary of State for Scotland on the requirements of the Scotland Act 1998; although countries can aspire to the partnership described by the Minister, in practice if there is an ultra vires provision it is down to the Minister in Whitehall to override it by order. That is prescribed in the Scotland Act and applies to questions of European law if there is a conflict between the two countries.

Peter Hain: I will take the hon. Gentleman's word for it; his authority on those matters is unsurpassed. I am delighted that his voice has not been silenced on European matters and I hope that he will intervene throughout the rest of our debate.

Joyce Quin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while it is important for the convention to pursue its work in Brussels, it is also sensible for its members to report regularly to their national Parliaments and, to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), liaise with regional bodies as well? Throughout the life of the convention, there should be as much consultation and involvement of people as possible; we are all worried about the gap between European institutions and the people, and that would at least be an attempt to close it.

Peter Hain: That is a positive and constructive suggestion from my right hon. Friend, a distinguished predecessor of mine. We shall certainly look at that important proposal and I hope that the House authorities and the usual channels will look at it as well.
	It is important that we know what the British people think about Europe. Today, I have placed in the Library the results of an opinion poll that we commissioned from ICM, which surveyed a relatively large and authoritative sample of 2,000 people across Britain. The main findings include the fact that a majority of two to one think that our membership of the EU is a good thing for Britain. Big majorities agree that the EU promotes peace and security in Europe and is good for British jobs and trade. The poll shows that the British people's priorities for the future work of the EU are maintaining peace and security and fighting poverty, unemployment and crime. It is that same practical Europeanism that the Government are seeking to advance.

Richard Spring: What about the euro?

Peter Hain: I shall come to that.
	The poll confirms that many people know too little about the EU; no surprise there. But it also shows, rather more interestingly, that the more people know about the EU, the more positive they are about it; knowledge is a wonderful thing. The Government will continue to encourage that, especially among Conservative Back Benchers—indeed, among Conservative Front Benchers as well. The poll confirms that, like our Labour Government, people are worried about EU red tape and bureaucracy. Like our Government, they are concerned that the UK's national identity should not be lost in the EU. The poll shows that a majority are not at present convinced that we should join the euro—no surprises there either—although the majority against is rather smaller than in other polls; 47 per cent. of the ECM respondents were against joining it, while 36 per cent. were in favour.

Win Griffiths: There has been much play on the issue of national identity. Will my right hon. Friend reflect on whether the Scots or Welsh have less of a sense of national identity after hundreds of years of membership of the United Kingdom? Has the fact that the French, Germans and Italians have been EU members from the beginning made them feel that they have lost their national identity?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. As a Welsh MP like him, I know—as do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, hailing from Wales—that our Welsh constituents are fiercely patriotic about their Welshness, but are also proud to be British. The same is true in Scotland and, indeed, France; I do not detect that the French are any less French or less proud of being French citizens as a result of being positively pro-European. The same applies to the Germans, the Spanish and the citizens of any other EU member state. They are proud to be French, Spanish or German, as we are proud to be British, and proud to be European as well. That, I think, is the point that my hon. Friend was seeking to emphasise.
	The poll to which I referred confirms what we have long been saying as a Government: that what matters about the EU is what it delivers, how it makes a practical difference to the lives of its citizens, and how it helps sustain and strengthen the real, prosperous, safe Europe in which our people want to live.
	The European Council at Laeken will be the last before euro notes and coins are issued on new year's day in member states that are part of the single currency—a momentous step that will have an impact on us all. The change-over has been carefully prepared. We all have a strong interest in its success. A successful euro is in the interests of Britain, because so much of our trade is with countries in the euro zone.
	Meanwhile we shall continue to pursue our agenda for economic reform in Europe, pioneered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his Spanish counterpart at the Lisbon European Council in 1999—an agenda that will be given further impetus under Spanish leadership at Barcelona next year. That is yet another example of how, by building partnerships and engaging wholeheartedly with our friends in the European Union, we can deliver practical reforms and practical benefits for the British people.
	The coming 12 months will provide ample further evidence of the ways in which the EU delivers what Europe's citizens want. Key decisions are due on freedom, security and justice in the European context; action against terrorism; European defence; economic reform; and enlargement. These are all issues that matter to our citizens, and they are all steps towards our goal of building our kind of Europe: a practical, people's Europe that, in a world full of challenges, is the surest way to underpin British security and British prosperity.

Richard Spring: Since our last debate on European affairs, much has changed. The continent of Europe has had to face up to the challenge of terrorism. Just as in a previous generation many millions of people recalled the moment when they heard about the death of President Kennedy, so hundreds of millions of people alive today will always have in their memories the terrible visual images of 11 September. Yet out of that unspeakable horror, countries with very different political traditions have made common cause as the evils of terrorism are recognised.
	As we reflect on the past few decades, however, perhaps we find that the most astonishing political event in Europe was the collapse of the Berlin wall—a momentous event which gave an opportunity to millions of our fellow Europeans to breathe freely and escape a hideous totalitarianism that had gripped their lives for decades.
	A number of those now democratic countries are already valuable members of NATO and, we hope, will soon be embraced politically and economically by the European family of nations. Given their history, their accession to the European Union is a moral imperative, as well as a political and economic one.
	For Russia, the collapse of the old Soviet Union and its satellites has resulted in a particularly difficult period of adjustment. Old suspicions and distrust have lingered on. That is why few developments have been more welcome than Russia's positive response to the appalling events of 11 September. It has given the international coalition much-needed support in fighting the terrorist threat, and President Putin has shown himself to be a strong national leader. The House will no doubt agree that it has been important for the cause for which we are fighting that Russia has joined the battle against terrorism so wholeheartedly and helped to provide crucial logistical support.
	That has been accompanied by an overdue thaw in the relations between Russia and NATO. We applaud the Prime Minister's efforts to build bridges based on the new rapprochement. We in the Opposition were pleased to see how much Lord Robertson's visit to Moscow last month accomplished. The proposal to set up a Russia-North Atlantic council has considerable potential. Both parties stand to gain far greater security by working together.
	There is still, however, a small dark cloud on the horizon in the picture of eastern Europe. It is regrettable that September's elections showed that it is not for nothing that Belarus's Alexander Lukashenko is called Europe's last dictator. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe said that President Lukashenko's Government
	"did everything in its power to block the opposition"
	and that there was
	"a campaign of intimidation directed against opposition activists, domestic observation organizations, opposition and independent media, and a smear campaign against international observers."
	The future of countries such as Belarus and Ukraine, for different reasons, causes concern to the eastern European EU accession countries, which want stable and successful neighbours.
	The welcome warming of relations with Russia, especially the lessening of its concerns about NATO's post-cold war role, makes it easier to address the concerns of the Baltic states about security, by admitting them to NATO. Arising out of the experience of close co-operation over Afghanistan and our gratitude for that, Russia should no longer feel threatened by the Baltic states joining NATO. Every NATO state gains when a new member is admitted, and for the Baltic states admission would be a further sign of their acceptance and recognition by the world as full and independent parts of democratic Europe. Admission to NATO would enable them finally to put their difficult past behind them, at no risk to the interests of Russia or their own Russian minorities.

Gisela Stuart: Although I agree that the Baltic states should be admitted to NATO as quickly as possible, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should distinguish between the situation of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, which are all slightly different, and that there would be problems with Kaliningrad, should they join NATO and the EU?

Richard Spring: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point, as I know that she takes a particular interest in these matters. Following the events of 11 September, we should explore the position and take the opportunity to derive some benefit from the horror that occurred.
	Since the House last debated European affairs, a great step has been taken in the struggle against state-directed terrorism. Last June, Slobodan Milosevic was handed over to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague. It is clear that in Europe at least, state terrorism has been shown not to pay for the individuals who direct it. Nevertheless, the western Balkans remains a region of great instability. Ethnic hatreds still hang over the region's future. In Kosovo, much progress has been made and free and fair elections have been held, in which all ethnic groups took part.
	That brings us to Macedonia. I am sure that the entire House regrets the continued shootings and strife there, after it seemed that a peaceful settlement had been reached. It is clear that unless a way can be found to give Macedonia's inhabitants stability and security, the whole region will be in danger of another inter-ethnic flare-up.
	The military framework for dealing with the Balkan crises has been NATO, and it has proved flexible and successful. European Union countries outside NATO, such as Austria and Finland, have worked with it in peacekeeping operations such as KFOR. We should never risk losing such practical flexibility, which demonstrates NATO's importance and pre-eminence.
	The greatest strength of the response to the events of 11 September has been that it was a flexible and layered response within a flexible and layered coalition. It has been flexible in that it has not required every member of the EU to sign up to precisely the same response, and layered in that it has allowed for different levels of enthusiasm, and different levels of participation as a result. Some members have felt unable to make a military contribution in the fight against terrorism directly or to the campaign in Afghanistan in particular, while others have deployed forces or stated their intention to do so.
	A single European foreign or defence policy as advocated by Romano Prodi and others would have limited the effectiveness of the European response to that of the lowest common denominator, rather than allowing flexibly for a varied and layered response which allowed the EU to hold together while responding according to individual national capabilities. It is manifestly absurd that the advocates of greater integration have adduced 11 September as a reason for it. In fact, it plays in entirely the opposite direction. We need to ask ourselves this question: what would a single defence and foreign policy on this issue have been? The lesson of the challenge of 11 September shows that a flexible Europe met that challenge as an integrated and harmonised Europe could never have done.

Roger Casale: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is the existence of a European defence identity and the capacity to act in areas such as the Balkans that allow the flexibility that we have seen since 11 September, which has enabled us to build an international coalition that can act in areas such as Afghanistan?

Richard Spring: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's thought process exactly. Of course, there should be European defence co-operation. We have always been in favour of that, but we believe that it should work under the umbrella of NATO. That is the difficulty that we now face as a result of Nice.

Joyce Quin: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether he is definitely repudiating the part of the Maastricht treaty—let us remember that it was signed up to by a Conservative Government and a Conservative Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary—that included a commitment to the
	"progressive framing of a common defence policy"?
	Is he now repudiating that commitment?

Richard Spring: The right hon. Lady knows perfectly well that there was never any intention to establish a separate command structure outside NATO, but if one looks at exactly what was agreed at Nice, one sees that it is entirely different. I remind her that, originally, the Prime Minister himself bitterly opposed the moves that arose out of St. Malo. That is on the record.
	The most practical thing that we can do to help our friends in eastern Europe is to proceed with enlargement of the European Union, which is the greatest task that faces member states. Regrettably, what the Government signed up to at Nice now threatens to undermine the very raison d'être of Nice: enlargement. There is no guarantee that the Irish people would change their minds if the Irish Government held another referendum on Nice. For enlargement to occur, a fallback position is clearly needed. We have pointed that out to the Government before and they need to answer the point. It is no use carrying on pretending that this is not a problem. I am sure that the whole House will be glad to hear whether such a fallback plan exists, and if so, what it is. I would not like to think that the Government had not comprehensively and urgently considered the problem.
	The other great difficulty in the accession process is the lack of reform of the common agricultural policy. We know that, if there is no reform, the costs will explode and enlargement would be made virtually impossible. We have talked about these matters frequently in the Chamber, but I ask the Minister to note the final declaration at the recent World Trade Organisation meeting in Doha, which committed members to improvements in market access and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support. It would be very helpful to all hon. Members to understand exactly what that means in practice, as it applies to the common agricultural policy. I hope that he will refer to the matter. Of course, agricultural reform was not even raised at Nice, which is very regrettable.
	Before Nice, we were told by the previous Foreign Secretary that the accession process arising out of the so-called Amsterdam treaty leftovers probably did not require a formal treaty to pave the way for enlargement. If the accession process is, as we believe, a historical imperative, Nice should have been focused on it unequivocally and overwhelmingly. Before Nice, the previous Foreign Secretary told us about the 50 items for potential extensions of qualified majority voting put forward by the French presidency and then substantially ruled them out. In practice, however, at Nice the Government agreed wholly or partially to the majority of such extensions—so much for rhetoric versus reality.
	As I told the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), with regard to St. Malo our own Prime Minister flatly rejected the creation of any military structure outside NATO. What emerged at Nice was a European rapid reaction force that had nothing to do with improved defence capabilities or enhanced burden sharing, but everything to do with a structure that could ultimately undermine NATO and the United States presence in Europe.

Peter Hain: In that case, why have NATO and the United States welcomed it?

Richard Spring: I have read what President Bush had to say. The Prime Minister's interpretation does not accord with what was signed up to at Nice. If the Minister looks at the annexes and exactly what was spelled out, he will see that there is a separate structure. As he will know, there is genuine concern in NATO, the United States and this country about a rival structure that may cause tensions within NATO in future. I am sure that he would not want that to happen. The separation of the command structure is spelled out unequivocally in the Nice annexes, and the Government simply cannot pretend otherwise. There are those who say that, since 11 September, there has been much rethinking. I hope so, for it is not only the decreasing military capabilities of Europe that have been put under the spotlight.
	Let us turn now to the charter of fundamental rights. I am delighted to see the former Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), in the Chamber as it was he who compared the importance of the charter with that of the Beano. He said:
	"We do not . . . favour the Charter's incorporation into the Treaties."—[Official Report, 1 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 541W.]
	A matter of weeks later, he said:
	"I think it would be premature to decide now whether or not it should go into the treaties."
	Furthermore, the Prime Minister appeared to rule out an EU-wide constitution in his Warsaw speech.

Keith Vaz: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman does not read my speeches with the same enthusiasm with which I am listening to him now. He will know that I said that the charter of fundamental rights was not a legally enforceable document. There was no question of its being entered into the treaties.

Richard Spring: I shall address that point specifically in relation to the interpretation of the European Commission's view of its efficacy in that respect. We said at the time that the charter would be the basis for a European constitution, and of course that is exactly what is happening at the moment.
	When I recently asked the current Minister for Europe about discussions that he had had regarding the inclusion of a possible EU constitution in the forthcoming Laeken declaration, he declined in a written reply on 22 November to answer that very simple question. The plain fact is that numerous European leaders, including Chancellor Schroder and President Chirac, have made powerful calls for a European constitution based on the charter. Our Government know what the consequences will be for our country; we have no written constitution. Nothing will alienate the British people more from the EU than a wholesale increase in judge-led law and the further blurring of the division between the legislature and the judiciary.
	So, Nice was a catalogue of bad preparation, bad judgment and a lack of foresight on the part of our Government. It not only put in place the seeds of an intrusive and damaging European supranational constitution and the potential for tensions in NATO, but most of all, to the extent that it dealt with enlargement—as it should have done—it may well have obstructed it.
	Of course, we would have accepted the functional changes associated with enlargement, such as those in voting power. Nice was not about stopping the processes that are alienating Europe's citizens from the institutions of the European Union. It has simply aggravated the problem. All of this was signed up to by a Government who have failed to repatriate one single power to national Parliaments and to stop the remorseless process of political integration—a failure that has arisen because they have absolutely no view or conviction whatever about what an enlarged European Union should look like in 10 or 15 years' time.
	However, as the Minister for Europe said, the processes that lead up to Laeken, and subsequently to the intergovernmental conference in 2004, are in place. We want to make a positive contribution to the discussions that lead up to the IGC. In contrast to the thought-free zone opposite, we have already devised fresh ideas to reinvigorate the role of national Parliaments and give proper force to subsidiarity.
	Let me spell out some of our ideas. We want to put a senior Minister directly in charge of our Brussels representation, who regularly reports back to Parliament, answers questions, faces scrutiny and spends part of the week in Brussels. He or she would sit on the Committee of Permanent Representatives on that basis. We support a formal subsidiarity panel to which national Parliaments, not the courts, could appeal. We support enhanced scrutiny, and consideration of how national Parliaments can amend EU legislation. We want a structured and open dialogue between national Parliaments and the Council of Ministers. We also support a national parliamentary committee that oversees EU expenditure in every member state and monitors any possible fraud and abuse.

Roger Casale: It sounds increasingly as if the hon. Gentleman is arguing for some sort of European constitution.

Richard Spring: We got used to the hon. Gentleman's interventions in the Committee that dealt with the Nice ratification process. I shall not comment further.
	The proposals that I outlined, among others, would completely alter the balance and tone in the EU. We want clear limits on what is being done at the centre.

Chris Bryant: Let me take the hon. Gentleman back three or four sentences. He briefly mentioned a proposal for national Parliaments to be able to amend European legislation. I am not sure whether he means that an individual country should amend the legislation for all the countries. However, that is an unreliable process unless all the countries get together to amend the legislation for everybody. That is the purpose of the European Parliament.

Richard Spring: I was trying to make the point that we need to enhance the role of national Parliaments. The Minister for Europe has also said that. We should consider the matter properly. We are making suggestions that can subsequently be discussed and debated to ascertain whether they can be developed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there is no point in discussing the disconnection of national Parliaments from the architecture of the EU without making some practical proposals. Those that I have outlined are among several ideas that we want to consider. It is important that our national Parliament has a role in the EU that it currently lacks.

Angus Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing yet another intervention. He talked about several ideas on subsidiarity, yet he did not mention the role that sub-state Parliaments in the United Kingdom might play. Perhaps he has missed something out or has no ideas about subsidiarity apart from the role of the House of Commons.

Richard Spring: I appeared before the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament with the hon. Gentleman, and I spelled out my views in great detail. His memory is a little imperfect.
	We support a change in the tone and structures of the EU. We want clear limits on what is done centrally. How does that square with the Prime Minister's view that there should be no finality to what is done at the centre? Of course, exceptional and unforeseen circumstances may arise and demand a unified response; that is different. However, it is ridiculous to diagnose the problem constantly and offer no prescription. The British people want not high-flown, windy rhetoric, but a clarity that is absent from current Government thinking.
	The Minister for Europe talked about the eurozone and the fact that the euro will come into play in a few weeks. Of course, the strength of the euro will depend on the performance in the economies of the countries in the eurozone. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we can only hope that the economies of Europe will grow, because they are important export markets for us.
	However, it is worth remembering what the Prime Minister said before the 1997 election when he talked about his love of the pound and his feelings about the Queen's head on the £10 note. He said:
	"I feel it too. There's a very strong emotional tie to the pound which I fully understand. Of course there are emotional issues involved in the single currency.
	It's not just a question of economics. It's about the sovereignty of Britain and constitutional issues, too."
	Since then, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Europe have made further comments. They have said that there is no constitutional bar to the single currency. At what point and by whom was that resolved? Did a group of learned Queen's Counsel pronounce on the matter? Perhaps it was the Attorney-General, or did the Lord Chancellor make a magisterial pronouncement? We await the right hon. Gentleman's explanation with bated breath.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Spring: Many Labour Members would like to speak. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I have given way generously this evening.
	The Minister for Europe recently gave his views on the euro on "Newsnight". He expressed such wonderful banalities as, "We can't afford to be left behind in Europe." He showed that he had no clue about the operation of the European central bank by saying, "Where we don't have influence yet is in the direction of monetary policy." However, his most fatuous remark was, "Even if you opt out you are affected by it."
	Leaving aside our position as the fourth largest economy in the world, let us consider Canada, which is a member of the North American Free Trade Area and has an economy that is far more dominated by and more inextricably tied to the United States than our economy is affected by its relationship with the continent of Europe. Yet no one in Canada believes that it is essential for the Canadian dollar to be abolished. There are many other examples around the world.
	As the Bank of England has confirmed, foreign investment has not been dissuaded from coming here because we are not in the eurozone. What economic statistic can the Minister for Europe produce to reflect the disadvantages that apparently burden us?
	The single currency has little to do with economic considerations and everything to do with the politics of integration in the EU. As Mr. Duisenberg, president of the European central bank, openly said:
	"The process of monetary union goes hand in hand with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU is, and was always meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe."
	Let us not be in denial. The Chancellor's five economic tests are wholly subjective. The only test that matters is the sixth test of how and when to win a referendum. We shall argue for retaining our currency on economic, political and constitutional grounds.
	If the Minister for Europe wants to elevate the important debate above woolly rhetoric, he should consider producing a White Paper to examine the economic, political and constitutional implications of the single currency. If the Government did that, I am sure that the document would bear out our view that it is in Britain's interests to retain our currency. That view is held by a clear majority of British people.
	I have already referred to the tensions and difficulties in the Balkans. I should like to mention two other worrying areas in Europe. Today a meeting is taking place in Nicosia between the representatives of the two Cypriot communities, Mr. Denktash and Mr. Clerides. The position of successive Governments has been clear: we favour a bizonal, bicommunal, federal structure for the island. We have strong historic ties to Cyprus, and its accession to the EU has put a spotlight on the island. The continued division can be no bar to Cypriot accession.
	Turkey also has ambitions for EU membership that we have accepted. However, it is greatly in Turkey's interest to resolve the problem in Cyprus, not least because of the growing disparity of living standards between the two parts of the island. Cyprus has already closed 23 out of the 31 accession chapters. We can only hope for a settlement. However, its absence cannot be allowed to impede full EU membership.
	Lastly, I want to consider Gibraltar, where passions have risen dramatically in the lead-up to and the aftermath of the recent Brussels process meeting in Barcelona. We welcome the Government's commitment to ensuring that Gibraltarians will participate in the next European elections and we look forward to hearing the details. I hope that the Spanish Government will try to minimise the points of friction across the border.
	The people of Britain have a special feeling for the people of Gibraltar, for good historic reasons, and value their continued association with us. I am sorry to have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that nobody is more directly responsible for the upsurge of concern and anxiety in this country and, particularly, in Gibraltar than he is. He said:
	"Our European partners do not understand why a dispute between two member states over a territory with a population one fifteenth that of Luxembourg should be a deciding factor in such decisions."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 7 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 90WH.]
	When the right hon. Gentleman made that statement, he showed a deeply patronising attitude. It was highly provocative. He then dispatched his Parliamentary Private Secretary—the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)—to appear on television to discuss Gibraltar with the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and me. The hon. Member for Don Valley made the disgraceful and inaccurate statement that smuggling was taking place on a massive scale. Where is the evidence for that? The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs rejected the accusations of massive smuggling and money laundering last year.
	So, despite assurances about respecting the right of Gibraltarians to determine their future, an atmosphere of bullying hostility has been created. This is a mess entirely of the Government's making; it is destructive and wholly unnecessary. We have made it clear that the way forward in any negotiations should be based on the concept of two flags and three voices, echoing the successful peace process in Northern Ireland. We would encourage the Spanish Government to seek a productive and friendly dialogue with their Gibraltarian neighbours and, in that atmosphere, encourage Gibraltar to respond.
	All hon. Members hold Spain in great admiration. In the time span of a generation, it has transformed itself into an exemplary parliamentary democracy and a successful constitutional monarchy. It is also a valued EU and NATO partner. Despite all that, there is no question but that the right of Gibraltar's citizens to maintain their constitutional arrangements is an absolute one, and no amount of weasel words will alter that fact.

Gisela Stuart: On Gibraltar, I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need three voices round the table. However, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar made it quite clear when he gave evidence to the Select Committee that he believes that the interests of the people of Gibraltar are better served by an empty chair than by his presence at the negotiations.

Richard Spring: The hon. Lady does the Chief Minister an injustice, because he has made it plain that the concept of two flags and three voices is one to which he would be happy to accede. In fact, we have had discussions about such a process echoing the peace process in Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady is not being fair to the Chief Minister, because the situation might be quite different had the matter been handled differently by the Minister.

Peter Hain: The fact is that we have offered the Chief Minister exactly the same conditions for participation in the Brussels process talks—which are aimed at securing an agreement that will improve life in Gibraltar—that previous Chief Ministers have agreed to, and which have been offered by previous Conservative Governments. We are simply picking up the baton in a process started under Baroness Thatcher in 1984, seeking to promote dialogue with Spain and Gibraltar to resolve this intractable problem.

Richard Spring: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right to want to resolve this intractable problem. He must, however, ask himself why there has been such fury and passion on the subject, and why the Chief Minister adopted the attitude that he did. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shrugging his shoulders. He should not be shrugging his shoulders about an issue such as this, because it is of deep concern not only to the people of Gibraltar but to the British people who write in their droves to Members of Parliament because they are concerned about what is happening. All I am suggesting is that there is a way of resolving this issue, but it does not involve using the kind of language that the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Private Secretary have used with such reckless abandon.
	There are many lessons to be learned from the last 12 months. Nice was a failure of aspiration and influence by this Government, and the Brussels process was turned wholly unnecessarily into a cauldron of anxiety and suspicion. Nevertheless, following September's truly terrible events, we have been forced to examine the nature of our own societies. Despite our being a pluralistic, socially liberal country, tolerant by world standards and slow to anger, the Prime Minister's determined response overwhelmingly had the support of the nation. It has brought all of us who cherish civilised standards more closely together, from the Atlantic to the Urals and beyond. But it has also shown us in Britain that we abandon our ultimate independence and flexibility at our peril. If we disconnect our people from our institutions—as we continue to do, particularly with regard to the EU—the validation of our democracy will surely be further weakened. This is clearly a lesson that the Government must urgently learn.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Clearly, many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, for which there is limited time available. I urge hon. Members, therefore, to keep their contributions brief. More may then be able to catch my eye.

Alan Howarth: We are now being encouraged at the highest level to address ourselves to the possibility of an early referendum on membership of the euro. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sees the barometer rising; the chairman of the Labour party—the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)—has boldly pushed the boat out.
	I am a European. I have lived in France and remain an unrepentant francophile, and I have studied the classics and history—how could I not be a European?
	The motives and ambitions of the founding fathers of the European communities were noble. French and German officials who had jointly administered occupied France were determined that enlightened politics and bureaucracy should prevent any further such catastrophe.
	I confess that during what sometimes felt like the rather long hours that I spent seated at the table of the Council of Ministers, there were moments when I allowed my mind to wander from the immediate agenda. I have watched the representatives of 15 European nations, with their histories of conflict between them, earnestly thrashing out their policy differences under the auspices of this still new institution, the European Union, and I have been moved.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has expressed regret that Britain did not play a shaping part in the inception of the European Union. But why did we not do so? It was not for reasons of insularity. The fact is that nothing in Britain's historical experience disposed us to feel that we should be part of the new system that the French and the Germans were creating. We had not experienced almost total destruction in war. We had not been occupied since Norman times. We had seen off the threat of German invasion. We were complacent about our institutions of parliamentary sovereignty.
	If we had deep national doubts about more limited propositions in the 1950s and the 1970s, there are now even deeper doubts about merging our currency with the single European currency.
	For all my personal sense of being a European, and notwithstanding that I believe firmly that it is right for Britain to be a member of the European Union, I cannot believe that we should join the single currency—in the foreseeable future, at any rate. The reasons that we should not do so are both economic and political.
	Fixed currency regimes have not been good for Britain. The 1960s saw a struggle, first to avert devaluation and then to cope with its consequences. The Bretton Woods system collapsed in the early 1970s. The snake, the crawling peg, the shadowing of the deutschmark, and the exchange rate mechanism—all the subsequent devices to fix currency parities—were damaging to the British economy.
	On the other hand, since we fell out of the ERM in 1992, the British economy has prospered remarkably. Low inflation, low long-term interest rates, low unemployment, successful export performance, and our standing as the world's fourth largest economy—all the achievements that I was so pleased and proud to hear my right hon. Friend the Chancellor expound in the pre-Budget report—are attributable in very real measure to the freedom, which we have in the main skilfully exercised, to concentrate on other purposes and on disciplines other than the exchange rate.

Mark Hendrick: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that what is being proposed in terms of membership of the euro is membership of a single currency, not—as we have had in the past—membership of a basket of currencies known as the ecu?

Alan Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend. We therefore have to contemplate this issue with even greater seriousness.
	I do not see how the great and the good of the economic establishment can know what the appropriate rate of entry into the euro would be for sterling. They certainly got it badly wrong in the case of the exchange rate mechanism. If—more by luck than by judgment—they should get it about right in 2005, why should we suppose that that rate would still be appropriate in 2010 or 2015? The economies of different countries will perform differentially, whatever the momentary convergence and whether within euroland or outside it.
	A single interest rate is difficult enough to judge and manage within the United Kingdom alone. The policy that is appropriate to contain house-price inflation in south-east England is not the policy to help industrial manufacturers in south-east Wales to export, or to help the communities that have been so devastated by the collapse of steel-making to pick themselves up. How much harder it must be to operate a single monetary policy to suit the needs of a community of 12, or maybe more.
	The social and political stresses consequential on the single European currency and single monetary policy will not be alleviated, as in the United States, by labour mobility, nor, as in the United Kingdom, by an automatic stabiliser—a cyclical adjustment of deficit targets, enabling public expenditure transfers to take place in favour of people and areas affected by unemployment. The Maastricht treaty sets damagingly tight limits on borrowing by Governments: it must amount to no more than 3 per cent. of gross domestic product, even when their countries are in recession. The stresses will have to be alleviated by tax-funded public expenditure.
	The theory is that taxation policy will remain a matter for individual member states, but can the weaker regions of euroland realistically be expected to cope single-handed with the collateral damage caused by interest rates that are inappropriate for them? The pressure for the regional fund and the social fund to grow and grow will be irresistible. Only recently, the President of the European Commission called for the establishment of a European central fiscal institution. Tax-funded redistribution from richer to poorer across national boundaries within the European Union must entail an increase in supranational governmental powers in Europe.
	A federal Europe was always part of the original project, as the treaty of Rome's commitment to "ever closer union" effectively avowed. The single currency project has always been politically driven—supported, naturally, by multinational business. It has been driven by elites, who have not carried public opinion with them at all easily. Few economists will argue confidently that it is right on economic grounds.
	The enthusiasts adduce a number of economic arguments in favour of Britain's joining the euro. Their principal arguments are these. They say that Britain will not be able to cope on its own; but we are inside the European single market. They say that our businesses would be protected from foreign exchange volatility, which ignores the fact that the dollar is more important to Britain's trade than the euro, and that the euro has been highly unstable against the dollar. They say that it would be nice not to have to pay the costs of foreign exchange transactions, which is a trivial argument. They say that more international investment would be attracted to Britain. That is belied by the fact that, in each of the last five years, we have attracted more inward investment than the original six members of the European Community put together. They say that we would be better placed to influence decisions in Europe and the world. That is plainly wrong as far as the European central bank is concerned—political influence is specifically ruled out by the treaty—and ignores Britain's membership of the G8 and the Security Council. Some industrialists say that, if only we join, we shall trade happily ever after with a competitive exchange rate. That is the sort of self-delusion that makes it certain that, whatever the exchange rate, they will fail to make their businesses competitive.
	The question, therefore, is whether joining is right for Britain politically. I believe it is not, for the historical reasons I have given and because of my conclusions when I examine the condition of the EU's institutions and consider the implications for democracy.
	I regret to say that the Commission is entirely unfit to handle significantly greater responsibility. Both as Science Minister and as Minister for the Arts, I was shocked at its incompetence. I was particularly scandalised by Directorate-General XXIII's handling of the droit de suite issue, which must be a locus classicus of misgovernment. Despite repeated requests from British Ministers, the Commission refused to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of a policy which, when implemented, will certainly be destructive of the EU art market, which happens to be located in London. I was also deeply unimpressed by the inadequacies of Directorate-General X in developing and handling the Culture 2000 programme.

Wayne David: Is not Commissioner Neil Kinnock making tremendous advances in reforming the Commission?

Alan Howarth: Notwithstanding the heroic struggles of Commissioner Kinnock, as Vice-President, with the task of reforming the Commission, he has a job on his hands even tougher than any he had to do as leader of the Labour party.
	I mean no disrespect to the European Parliament if I note that it is an immature institution, by no means capable of bearing the weight of democratic responsibility implied by the single currency. Its powers are modest. It is based on limited trust, and on shallow accountability. We in this country are not remotely ready, ideologically or organisationally, to practise democratic politics on a European scale. The remedies now proposed by the Belgian presidency to deal with the gulf that they see widening between the peoples of Europe and the institutions of the EU include cross-European political parties, further extensions of qualified majority voting, enshrining the charter of fundamental rights in EU law, and direct election of an EU President. I hope very much that at Laeken my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will explain that it is not sensible or appropriate for Britain to accept such proposals. We would do better to concentrate on learning how to make devolution work well in the United Kingdom, and on restoring our citizens' faith in this Parliament.
	The Labour party was elected in Britain to carry through a social democratic programme, particularly to improve our public services. Membership of the single currency would, at least, severely hamper our efforts. We would lose the freedom to pursue the economic policies that we judged to be right. As things are now, the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England has had the freedom to cut interest rates over recent months more aggressively than the European central bank. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's fiscal programme, which he was told by the Commission earlier this year would be out of order within economic and monetary union, looks admirably judged. The International Monetary Fund projects UK growth next year of 1.8 per cent., against eurozone growth of 1.3 per cent.
	If we joined EMU, we would be members of a system whose record on unemployment—I think particularly of the loss of manufacturing jobs—has been and remains lamentable. Why should we imprison ourselves in a system locked into deflation by the remit of the European central bank, and compounded by the masochism of the growth and stability pact? Let us keep our discretion in policy making, and our capacity to configure policy to take account of our distinctive economic characteristics and social priorities. Let us not put our jobs at such risk and erode our democracy.
	I greatly admire the thoughtfulness, energy, skill and courage shown by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in international affairs—not just following 11 September, but since 1997. His scope as a leader, domestically and internationally, would be diminished rather than enhanced in the integrated Europe to which the single currency leads. I do not think it appropriate or realistic for Britain to aspire to lead the European Union. It will be better if, true to our history, we continue from within a more limited—though positive—participation in Europe to preserve the freedom to act on our judgment of Britain's interests at home and abroad.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth). Our political opinions have diverged somewhat in recent years, although I am glad to say that there is a convergence on this issue, at least. I have always respected his political principles, even when I disagreed with him. However, I am delighted that he puts right at the front of his political thinking the crucial need to maintain self-government in the United Kingdom. That is important for the electorate.
	Although the vision that the right hon. Member for Newport, East and other Labour Members have for the United Kingdom's social and political structure differs very much from mine, I think that he and I agree that the electors must be able to choose. If hon. Members hand over all these powers to people whom we have not elected and cannot remove, we shall be giving away not so much our powers as those of the people who elect us. That will create a very widespread disillusionment with unpredictable results.
	The Minister introduced the debate by referring to the forthcoming meeting at Laeken. I suppose that that will be one of the periodic episodes when the European Union goes through an internal crisis of confidence and tries to re-invent itself. We have learned that a paper has been prepared for that summit by the Belgian Prime Minister, who is chairman of a committee of wise men that includes Jacques Delors. That paper, like everything else in the European Union, is confidential, but, again like everything else in the European Union, it has been leaked.
	We are told that that study has concluded that the European Union is secretive, remote and undemocratic. Although I fully agree with that analysis, I am slightly worried about this constant reinvention of the European Union. I have lost count of the number of times that it has tried to relaunch itself or give itself a make-over, a face-lift or some type of rethink. Of course nothing ever really happens. The aim is a noble one: it is always to close the gap between rulers and ruled and to create a people's Europe rather than a politician's Europe. But of course it never happens.
	This particular reinvention looks particularly unpromising because its apparent solution is to entrench the European charter of fundamental rights and to introduce a written European constitution. Both policies were firmly rejected by the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister in the Nice negotiations, although I confidently expect that if the German and French Governments get their way on it, the Prime Minister will find a way of saying that he was in favour of those policies all along.
	The basic flaw is that the supposed solution to widespread public disillusionment with the European Union is yet more of the same policies. I think that, one day, it will occur to Heads of Government that something is more fundamentally wrong with the Union and with the structure and direction of policy. The Minister has referred to that disillusionment in this debate. It manifests itself in various ways, such as the very low turnout in European elections, which has reached almost farcical levels in the United Kingdom. We have also had the very unexpected referendum results.
	It is very noticeable that when the people of Europe are allowed anywhere near a decision, they usually reject the advice of the European political elite who tell them what to do and they reject the proposal. That is what happened in the Danish referendum on the euro, when almost all the political parties, newspapers, trade unions and employers' organisations told the people of Denmark to vote yes, but the people of Denmark voted no. The same happened in Ireland with the treaty of Nice.
	Unless that disillusionment and sense of alienation is tackled fundamentally, the results will be dangerous and even unpredictable. However, I do not want to be only critical; I have a few suggestions for the Government, the first of which is simply to tell the truth. As I know that that is difficult advice to give to the Government, I shall give an example. The other day, the Prime Minister came down to earth from his mission to save the world and set about trying to save the reputation of the European Union. He came up with the old familiar figure that 60 per cent. of our trade is with the European Union. That is simply untrue.
	The Pink Book, of which I am a regular reader, gives a most useful geographic breakdown of the United Kingdom's trade patterns, and it breaks down our current account into earnings and payments. The recently published 2001 edition of the Pink Book says of those earnings and payments that
	"The European Union (EU) accounted for . . . around half (48 per cent.) of the world total".
	That figure is less than half of the total. Even if we took out investment earnings and other transfers, the figure for trade alone would be 51 per cent. There is no figure anywhere in the tables or the text of the Pink Book, even for goods alone, that even approaches the 60 per cent. figure that has been quoted by the Prime Minister and the Government. Let us, right at the start of this debate, at least respect the facts. If the Government ever again produce the figure of 60 per cent. of our trade being with the European Union, we will know that they have something to hide or a very weak case.
	We also have the debate on the euro. I was very struck by the acute analysis of the right hon. Member for Newport, East, and I agreed with much of what he said. Again, however, we are not having a proper debate in this country because we are not being given the facts. We are not even told what the estimated cost of changing over to the euro would be for this country. Various private-sector estimates are that the cost for the United Kingdom private sector will be £30 billion, but the Government have to tell us what the public sector cost will be. I know that such an estimate exists. I was in the Treasury five years ago, and even then there were outline estimates for Departments and Government agencies of the cost of changing over to the euro. If the Government are serious about having a debate on this crucial issue, let us have the facts.
	We know that the truly difficult debate is occurring not yet in the country but inside the Government and that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are circling round each other looking for political advantage. They have the agreed five economic tests, but we all know that those are highly subjective and that the same people who are asking the questions will be answering them and then judging the result. We also know, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) said, that there is an unannounced sixth test, which is whether public opinion can be changed in time.
	Therefore, on this crucial issue, all we have from the Government is a policy of fudge and delay. If the Government really want to start a rational debate and include people in this assessment, they should try to advance some of the arguments for joining the euro themselves, rather than leaving it all to poor old Britain in Europe. I do not know whether Britain in Europe still exists as an organisation; it is certainly very demoralised and bankrupt. Nevertheless, it is most unfair for the Government to expect Britain in Europe to make all the running when Ministers themselves are unwilling to try to dream up some of the supposed advantages.
	The arguments so far simply resolve themselves into one of inevitability: we are told that it is going to happen and that it is therefore a good thing. That is less of an argument than an attitude, and a pretty feeble one at that.
	We used to be told that communism was inevitable, but free people in a democracy have choices to make. We need to know what is best for this country.
	The only other argument that we hear is the influence argument. We are told that we have to join the euro to sit at the top table, whatever that is. Sometimes, the metaphor changes: unless we join, we will miss the bus or be left behind in Europe in some unexplained way. Of course, that is all nonsense. I want influence over the matters that I am sent here to decide by my constituents. I want 100 per cent. of that influence, but it is a secondary matter whether I have influence over other countries with their own electorates.
	In any case, what brings a country influence in the world is not membership of some bloc but economic success, combined with military capability and the freedom to use it, and a foreign policy that is clear and over which the country has control. All that is on display in Afghanistan. We have influence on that issue, but it has nothing to do with our membership of the European Union or whether we are in or out of the single currency. In fact, the reverse is true. All our influence is threatened by the European Union.
	Economically, the EU is in the slow lane. The eurozone has an appalling record of job creation. It is sitting on a demographic and pension time bomb that it will not acknowledge. It endlessly talks about economic reforms, but nothing happens. After the Lisbon summit, the Prime Minister came back here with wonderful declarations about reform, but nothing happened. Nothing ever changes. Meanwhile, the regulations, the red tape and the tax harmonisation continue, eroding the competitiveness of Europe in the wider world—and that is the really big issue. I simply do not understand how we would benefit economically. If we take into account the fact that our gross contributions to the EU are running at £20 million a day, of which we get back only about half, the profit and loss account looks distinctly unappetising.
	Politically, the Government persist with the old-fashioned view that we exist as a country only in so far as we belong to a bloc. There are far more important forces at work in the world today, driven by issues such as information technology and the internet that have made geography irrelevant. We have witnessed the rise of the English language to world dominance, which is a huge advantage to this country that has nothing to do with the European Union. In fact, it is threatened by the EU, which persists in refusing to recognise that English has become the language of business and information technology in the whole of the rest of the world. Multilateral trade talks in the World Trade Organisation and tariff reduction talks are increasingly making the EU tariff wall irrelevant. Those developments reinforce the global maritime tradition of the UK. It is thus bizarre that the Government should defy that and attempt to lock us irreversibly into a low-growth trade bloc on our doorstep.
	The big lie at the centre of the debate is that it is about economics. I agreed very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk said about that issue. It is widely acknowledged on the continent that this is a political project. Sometimes we pride ourselves on the quality of our debate on the issue, but we should not boast like that because the other EU members are far more honest about it. For example, Otmar Issing, a chief economist at the European central bank, said:
	"There is no example in history of a lasting monetary union that was not linked to one state."
	That is true, but it is dismissed by the British Government as the ramblings of a continental eccentric. However, people such as Mr. Issing and his colleagues are serious, sensible, intelligent men and they know what they are talking about. They are speaking the truth. It is only the British Government who pretend that the euro project is all about some five economic tests dreamed up by the Treasury. There are enormous political and constitutional implications that are simply dismissed by the Government. I respect those hon. Members and others who make the political case for joining the euro. I disagree, but at least we can have a debate. I have no respect for people who advance the case for joining the euro and ignore the political implications or claim that they are irrelevant.
	Let us also be honest about what is happening to our democracy even in the absence of joining the euro. The Government are now regularly outvoted in Europe, which means that policies are imposed on us that, by definition, the House and the Government disagree with. The right hon. Member for Newport, East mentioned the art market, which is a good example. Some 50,000 people are employed in the British art market, but it will go off to New York because the EU intends to impose a resale levy on works of art.

Kevan Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he is a member of a political party that has taken the major steps over the past 30 years to get to where we are today? Does he now suggest that his party has been wrong for the past 30 years and is he calling for withdrawal from Europe?

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am giving a specific example of an issue on which the hon. Gentleman's Government have been outvoted, and it should worry him. Instead of asking what I would have done if I were still in government, he should ask what is happening now when the Labour party is in control. Is he worried about the 50,000 people employed in the British art market? The change will not affect the big auction houses, of course. They already own assets in New York and will simply transfer their sales out of the EU to avoid the droit de suite or resale levy. As usual, it is the small people—the packers, the porters, the insurance agents and the transport agents—who will suffer and lose their jobs.
	To be fair to the Government, as I try to be on occasion, they understood the danger and voted against the tax, but they were outvoted. Where was the influence in the EU? That is the danger of what is happening. We are undermining those areas of national life in our economy where we have a competitive advantage, not to the advantage of the rest of the EU but—in that clear case—to the advantage of the art markets in Zurich, Tokyo and New York. They cannot believe their luck. They cannot believe that the EU would drive out of its jurisdiction an area of economic activity in which it has been so successful.
	Moreover, ratification of the Nice treaty means that more matters will be subject to majority voting and that the problem will therefore get worse. Even where we agree with EU policies, more and more decisions are being taken at the level of the European Union and further from the people whom we represent. The Government talk a lot about devolution and about moving decision making down so that it can be more relevant to electors and our constituents. Progressively, however, more decisions are being taken by a higher tier of Government, even more remote from people's day-to-day lives.
	The same is true of expenditure in Europe. Money is being spent ever further from individual taxpayers. It is transferred to Brussels automatically. No vote in this House is required, and no budgetary process takes place in this country to agree the annual tribute that we pay to Brussels. It all happens under the European Communities (Finance) Act 1995. There is nothing that the House or the Chancellor of the Exchequer can do about it. A sum of £20 million a day is automatically transferred to Brussels, some of which filters back to us as a result of the fraud and mismanagement that is inherent in the system.
	The electors have rumbled that. They know what is going on. Member states and the Commission denied for years that fraud and mismanagement were a problem. Finally, the members of the Commission resigned over the matter, but then half of them returned to office and the system goes on as it always has.
	The European Court of Auditors still refuses to pass the EU's annual expenditure accounts. If I were a director of a public company that did that, I would probably be in prison, but that is the system to which we belong.
	The budget goes on getting bigger, so the problem does too. Neil Kinnock has been mentioned. I am sure that he is doing his best to clear up the mess, but no one thinks about turning off the tap so as to stop the problem arising in the first place. We are reinforcing failure, and the people whom we represent have seen through that.
	My final point concerns an immediate example that I should like to share with the House. The European arrest warrant directive will be decided tomorrow or the next day in the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Brussels. The warrant has received no scrutiny in this House. The relevant European Standing Committee met on Monday to consider it but broke up because the Minister arrived with the wrong documents.
	When he opened the debate, the Minister said that one of his aims was to increase the involvement of national Parliaments. The treaty of Amsterdam, signed by the Government in 1997, makes that a requirement. It states that it wishes to encourage greater involvement of national Parliaments in the activities of the European Union. That is a mandated requirement by treaty law, but what is happening? The European arrest warrant directive is about to be agreed without any involvement of this House.
	That is a very serious matter, as the directive proposes the forcible transfer of suspects from this country to other member states. If another member state lodges an arrest warrant, we would be obliged to hand over a suspect, even if the alleged offence was not a crime in this country. Even more remarkably, the alleged offence might not have to be committed in the country making the application, but in this country. As a result, we will hand over citizens to other criminal jurisdictions because of events in this country that do not infringe British law.
	By any standards that is a remarkable development in British jurisprudence. It has not been debated in this House at all, but it is due to be decided tomorrow. It was debated in another place, where it caused much confusion. The Minister involved could not give many answers. The directive will be decided in secret, and on the basis of certain assurances given in another place that have not been given to this House.

Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be impossible for a British Minister to accede to the decision in Brussels tomorrow, if the matter has not been debated in this House?

David Heathcoat-Amory: It is certainly impossible politically and morally, but we wait on events. Points of order have been raised in this House and, I understand, in another place, but no assurances whatsoever have been given on the matter.
	The European arrest warrant will be the subject of primary legislation. A Bill is promised for early next year. Another startling development of recent days is that under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which is still being considered, it need not come before the House for primary legislation but could be dealt with by secondary legislation. That is unamendable, and where it is debated is at the discretion of the Government. It can be debated upstairs in Committee, and whatever its members may say or think, any motion that the Committee passes can be overridden and the matter can go through forthwith, without debate in the Chamber. That is what secondary legislation means.
	The entire issue of criminal sanctions for British people and our ancient judicial protection, built up over centuries, can all be changed in future by secondary legislation. Yet the Minister says that he wants to improve the involvement of national Parliaments. That is another example of all words and no action. Grand declarations and high-sounding assurances mean nothing.
	Unless we can close the gap between words and deeds, the disillusionment felt by our constituents will become uncontrollable. Will the Government, for once, give us the unvarnished information so that we can debate these matters? Above all, they must stop fooling themselves and trying to fool others about what is really happening in the European Union.

Keith Vaz: These European affairs debates are an opportunity for the House to discuss the forthcoming European Council. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has just spoken for 27 minutes and, to paraphrase him, it was all words and no content. It was the same speech that he gave six months ago or 12 months ago. We can imagine him sitting in Wells with a blanket around him and his hot cup of cocoa, reading his Pink Books. It is time that Conservative Members realised the importance of European debates. Only one Conservative Member is left now on the Back Benches, which shows how enthusiastic they are about Europe.
	I pay tribute to the work that the Government are doing on Europe. It is because of the work done by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe that the Prime Minister has been able to take such an important lead in world affairs. Europe is behind us and behind the alliance in our coalition against terrorism because of our positive engagement in Europe over the past four and a half years.
	I have a few points for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, and I hope that he will take them with him when he goes to Laeken. We have been talking about enlargement for a number of years, and are getting to the stage when the applicant countries need a firm date for entry. I used to favour the idea of small groups of countries joining separately over the next few years, but I think that the mood has changed and that most European countries—although I do not know the Government's position on the big bang principle—probably favour the entry of a large number of countries, perhaps the majority of those applying.
	I realise that some countries, such as Romania and Bulgaria, probably have not reached the stage that others have reached. Turkey, of course, has only recently been confirmed as a candidate country because of the lead taken by the Prime Minister. However, I think that the other countries expect to see real progress.
	Without a firm date for entry, we will be sending a negative message to the countries of eastern Europe. They have worked hard on the negotiation process and public opinion is with them at the moment, but if we send a message that they must wait even longer, people in countries whose Governments strongly support entry into the European Union will feel that they have been left out.
	It is most important that we are firm on enlargement, that we continue our leadership role and ensure that we put the argument strongly, because there is a feeling in some EU countries that we could wait—that perhaps we could just let in Poland and a couple of other countries and that the rest can follow. However, the mood is for change, so I hope that the Minister will go with a firm commitment to do something about setting a date for the applicant countries.
	The right hon. Member for Wells and the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who is no longer in his place, talked of the need for positive engagement. The right hon. Gentleman wondered what had happened to Britain in Europe. To divert him from his constant reading of Pink Books, I shall send him a book that Mr. Simon Buckby sent to me recently: "The Case for the Euro". I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to read it. I know that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is keen to read such literature.
	It is important that hon. Members realise that the Government have been putting the positive case for the euro. The Government support the euro; we believe that membership of the European Union is extremely important. That is why the chairman of the Labour party so recently said that membership of the single currency needed to be put before the British people as soon as possible.
	However, the fact remains that the five economic tests laid down by the Chancellor have still not been met. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) will find himself in a minority in the Labour party on that point. The vast majority of members of the Labour party and of the public are in favour of a strong relationship with Europe and, from conversations and meetings that I have held over several years, I believe that the vast majority of the British people want to join the euro, but the arguments being put by the hysterical tabloid press have distorted the case. If we are to win a referendum, we must put our arguments—exactly as the Government have been doing.
	I should point out to my right hon. Friend, however, that we are not yet ready for that referendum because those tests have not been met. We need to follow proper constitutional arrangements before we reach the referendum. Conditions must be assessed and they must be in the interests of this country. The matter must then go to the Cabinet; if the Cabinet agrees it, it must come to Parliament and then—and only then—will it go to the British people. All the British people will then have an opportunity to discuss it. There will be a wide-ranging debate and the hon. Member for Stone and the other horsemen of the Apocalypse who are not in the Chamber today—the hon. Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) have suddenly been promoted and are thus silent on this issue—will also have an opportunity to put their views.

Jenny Tonge: rose—

Keith Vaz: I am sorry that I cannot give way to the hon. Lady, because other hon. Members want to speak. The Liberal Democrat position is the right one—except on the tests. It is important that the tests should be met. The Liberal Democrat view that we should go ahead with a referendum without the proper economic case is wrong.
	The Minister is right to talk about reform. I have not read his latest leaflet, which reduces the treaties to 300 words. It is a brilliant idea. It is exactly what we should be doing. Indeed, as there are so many Welshmen in the House today, I wondered whether they might want a Welsh translation—I can think of a few other languages into which the leaflet might also be translated.
	Some Opposition Members, in the hysteria of the tabloid press, are trying to turn the European issue into one of not only language but the complications of the European Union. It is important that we should explain those points and the arguments to the British people in simple language.
	It is vital that we continue to push ahead with the reform agenda in Brussels. It is time that Brussels took off its burka. So much takes place in secrecy that people do not understand what is happening. I favour the televising of European Council meetings as an opportunity for people to see the good work that is being done by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Europe, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers. It is important to raise the veils of secrecy.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) for his work in the group of Laeken. It is essential that Britain is represented in that group by such an outstanding individual, ensuring that our agenda is discussed in Europe at the highest level.
	Unless we reform those institutions and the way in which the EU operates, we shall not be able to make the case for the euro in a referendum and win. As I have said before, the people of Britain will learn to love the EU only when they learn to love reform. My right hon. Friend the Minister has spoken the language of reform today, so he has our wholehearted support on this issue, and I wish him well in the forthcoming European Council meeting.

Michael Moore: I am pleased to follow the contribution of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), not least because he has restored some of the balance to a debate that has been going one way for a prolonged period. The Liberal Democrats broadly support what the Government seek to achieve on Europe, and we hope that they will continue to promote progress in reforming and developing the EU at the summit in Laeken next weekend.
	We are disappointed with the Government about one major issue—the single currency, to which the hon. Member for Leicester, East has just referred. Despite the Government's bold assertions in arguing the case, to which he referred, we believe that their approach is characterised by timidity and a lack of unanimity, so a rather confused message is coming across. Outside the environs of Westminster, few people could say with any clarity where the Government are going.
	Of course, in a few short weeks, the single currency will be a reality in the shops of Amsterdam and—dare I say—probably in some shops in the United Kingdom as well, and the transactions of Britain's exporters will be very much embedded in the process, too. Finally, the bogeyman of the single European currency will be put to rest, with the realisation that the single currency works across Europe and that the sky does not fall in as a consequence of its use.
	The Government's approach to persuading the British public about the merits of the European single currency continue to dismay its friends and encourage its enemies. It takes a massive leap of faith to find any unity throughout the recent speeches of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and Foreign Office Ministers. The Government need a clarity of purpose, or at least a consistency of spin. It is not enough simply to send the spin doctors out to tell the journalists what the speeches meant. Positive steps need to be taken to argue the case and prepare the country for the full reality.
	Only when we get the conditions correct for entry can we possibly hope to win a referendum; it cannot possibly be won in six weeks of campaigning. We need a sustained programme of education and persuasion, and we need a sustained Government voice. The Government will witness some of the details being finalised at Laeken in a few days' time, so they must substantially increase their efforts to promote and prepare this country for what we believe to be an important development for us.
	Of course, the main aim of the summit will be to put in place the mechanisms to assist the debate on EU reform and the preparations for the 2004 intergovernmental conference. We Liberal Democrats hope that the intergovernmental conference will be able to produce a constitution for Europe. We do not hide from that, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) suggested that those on the Conservative Front Bench do, and they ducked dealing with their fears on that issue.
	A constitution is important simply to set out clearly the roles and responsibilities of the different EU institutions, to define more clearly their relationship with individual member states and to prescribe the rights of individual citizens, by incorporating the charter of fundamental rights in that constitution. In that way, we can begin to address the huge concerns that people have about the progress of Europe and the growing disillusionment that dismays those of us who support Europe.
	The convention to be set up by the summit is crucial to the process and, in due course, to the outcome of the intergovernmental conference. If the convention is to be meaningful, its terms of reference must not be too restrictive and it must not prepare for a set outcome. If the debate is to be effective, it must be structured but not prescriptive.
	The European Scrutiny Committee report on the issue makes important recommendations. The convention should focus on the four key points coming out of the Nice treaty, but it should be free to consider other matters as well. It should be required to give an indication of the particular option that it prefers while not ruling out the others that it has considered. In addition, a House of Commons Member should be appointed to it by a motion of the whole House and not as the result of a stitch-up by the Whips. When appointed, that person should be required and given the opportunity to report back to the House on the convention's progress.
	One key point from Nice has become increasingly evident. Whatever we are doing, we must make Europe better understood. The treaties need to be simplified into something that approximates to language that we can all understand and about which we can hope to persuade others.
	Among the other issues, I wish to refer particularly to European security and defence policy. Much has been made of the transformation of the world since 11 September. Some aspects of the common foreign and security policy work well, but others require improvement. The policy covers 15 member states, with a population of approximately 370 million. After accession of applicant states, the population will increase to more than 500 million.
	European Union states spend about 150 billion euros each year on their military capabilities. That is about half the United States defence budget, although it recognises that there are more limited regional responsibilities. The EU population is 40 per cent. larger than that of the USA, but the gross domestic products of the two regional blocs are roughly the same.
	It is inconceivable to us that such a rich and populous region as ours should not make greater provision for its collective security. As the Minister said, now that the arrangements with Turkey over access to NATO assets are moving in the right direction, we are making progress towards achieving the European capability that we need. One by one the difficulties are being overcome. Over the past few months, there has been much rhetoric about standing shoulder to shoulder, but if that is to mean anything, we must be prepared to shoulder the burden of providing for our own security.
	The final issue that I want to consider briefly is the EU arrest warrant. Its purpose is straightforward and appealing enough, not least in that it is designed to remove the complexity and potential for delay that is inherent in the present arrangements for extradition which, through bilateral agreements between countries, are often complex. It is logical and desirable to replace that system with a common EU framework. Current procedures are clearly out of date, they are complex and require rationalisation.
	However, we are concerned about the breadth of the warrant that has been proposed and, not least, by the fact that the definitions in it are extremely vague. The general headings include "high-tech crime", "environmental crime" and "racism and xenophobia". Three times the proposal has come before the European Scrutiny Committee and it is still not satisfied with the Government's definitions. We understand that the proposal will not be included in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, but will appear in primary legislation next year. However, the agreements at Laeken in 10 days' time with other EU member states will be reflected in the legislation. As the House has not proved itself satisfied with the proposals as explained by the Government, we believe that it would be better not to sign up to the warrant at the summit. By delaying its acceptance until national Parliaments are happy with it, a better arrangement will come to the fore.
	After the euro is introduced in January, the face of Europe will change significantly. In a recent speech to academics and business men in Birmingham, the Prime Minister said:
	"The tragedy for British politics and for Britain is that too many politicians have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but up to the present day, to appreciate the reality of European integration and in so doing they have failed Britain's interests".
	Whether the Prime Minister was talking about the single currency or the agenda for reform and progress, he must not forget those words when he goes to Laeken.

Graham Allen: Tonight's debate is a classic example of why Parliament is held in contempt by the electorate and hon. Members. Seven Labour Members will not be able to contribute to it, which clearly demonstrates why we need a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches and a 15-minute limit on Front-Bench speeches. Those hon. Members who cannot contribute to this important debate should be allowed to place their contribution on the record or give it to the Clerk at the end of the day as they do in Congress. We have had a frustrating experience of what should have been an interesting exchange across the Floor of the House. Labour Members in particular have ripped up their speeches in order to squeeze in their remarks, and I shall confine my comments to the forthcoming European constitution for the EU.
	A few days ago the EU was savagely attacked for being too bossy, remote, secretive and undemocratic; for failing all its peoples; and because its critics are growing daily, its priorities are wrong and its procedures are inadequate. That attack did not come from The Sun, the Daily Mail or The Daily Telegraph, but from the Prime Minister of Belgium, which holds the EU presidency. He is a convinced integrationist and his opinion was endorsed by a committee of wise people of eminent Europeans, including Jacques Delors.
	The Belgian Prime Minister's report urges the EU to reform and reinvent itself, and it is right. Those of us who care about Europe, and I include all hon. Members in the Chamber in that, know that it is time to move on and for Europe to grow up. At the Laeken summit next week, the EU must begin to create a new democratic settlement between its institutions and the citizens of Europe. The United Kingdom needs to be at that table, helping to set the agenda. The British experience of constitution making—our experience of creating the rule of law and of civil liberties, and our distrust of state power—would be useful.
	The Prime Minister pointed out in Birmingham the other week that our history in Europe is one of missed opportunities. Another big juggernaut is coming over the brow of the hill; will we miss this opportunity, too? The 2004 intergovernmental conference will follow Laeken and it will commit the EU to a written constitution. People in the House and the UK have nothing to fear and everything to gain from the process. The opportunity should be welcomed by Europhiles and Europhobes alike. Uncertainty and mystery feeds the paranoia of both those groups, as well as the fears of the wider public. A written constitution will reassure everyone.
	The EU needs a written constitution, and it is going to get one. Barely a fortnight ago, France and Germany committed themselves to that. It is also a personal project of the German Chancellor. As has so often happened in the history of the EU, a fundamental project is under way and the British Government are faced with a choice between positive engagement and grudging acquiescence. We have seen the results of half-heartedness: our European partners create institutions that do not suit our national needs, and we join them years later, having lost the ability to influence the agenda and the design of the project.
	A constitution is part of the answer to reconnecting with our citizens—a plain, honest statement of where we are, rather than an obscure text that requires elite translators to teach us how we are governed. It also presents an opportunity to place an insurmountable roadblock in the way of that tiny minority who want a European superstate. Hon. Members are right to demand assurances on that issue, and it is precisely because we oppose a centralised state that it should be baldly stated on the face of a constitution. Only a written constitution will set clear boundaries to the power of the EU and underpin the authority of national and devolved institutions within the nation states. It can check any appetite, real or imagined, for regulation and interference in our daily lives.
	Limiting the tendency to centralise will also require the beefing up of that much abused word "subsidiarity". It will be a key test that the principle of subsidiarity is made clearer and more meaningful in the coming European constitution. It is unacceptable that no regulation, no directive, no act of power by any European institution has been challenged successfully on the grounds of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity must be placed at the head and at the heart of the new European constitution.
	I should alert the House to the fact that if that principle is made as clear as I want it to be, it will be rapidly and rightly employed by local and regional government in the United Kingdom. Far from abetting centralisation, such a European constitution will halt it and become the tool whereby citizens are able to reverse the process that has concentrated power in Brussels and in Westminster. Subsidiarity is the antithesis of the catch-all phrase, "ever closer union"—it has become the antidote to executive licence to go further and deeper without specific consent. The phrase "ever closer union" must be struck out of all the drafts, wherever it appears.
	Incidentally, it will be of great assistance to the EU if its constitution is written in elegant and inspiring language, not Eurobabble—and briefly, not bureaucratically. To be helpful, I intend to draw up such a constitution and present it to the House as a Bill, although I am not confident of out-doing the excellent 300-word distillation achieved by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe.
	The EU has already achieved a semi-constitution of sorts, albeit by accident rather than by design. In late-night hurried deals struck in an atmosphere of acrimony and exhaustion, European leaders have often appeared less concerned to establish a wise and happy government for the EU than to satisfy the transient demands of their domestic electorates and media. Their debates are largely secret, unreported and ignored. That semi-official constitution is the playground of cognoscenti of all parties who think that their being involved in the process means that the electorate and citizenship of Europe are also involved.
	The result of such methods is clear—the stark report of the Belgian Prime Minister who pointed out that, for all its real achievements, the EU's current governance inspires little loyalty or affection among its citizens. The EU has had ample warning of that alienation in opinion polls, turnouts for elections, the referendums in Denmark and the Irish Republic, and the growth of extremist parties throughout the Union, but all too often the Euro-executive dismiss it as a failure of the people to understand, or the mendacity of the media. That alienation could easily turn into outright hostility as the EU launches its two big projects, the euro and enlargement.
	Against that background, any losers and those who fear losing in the EU will not accept decisions that they feel are imposed upon them by remote, unaccountable European institutions.
	Without consensus and without citizens feeling ownership, the EU will stagnate. It might even dissolve in bitterness and secession. We will not get such consensus and such ownership across the EU without a contract with our people and without a constitution to provide legitimacy and democracy for the decisions that affect our citizens. To those who formed the current Union, from Schuman to Thatcher, we say thank you. Now, as the Union approaches maturity, we need a new set of people and a new structure. Otherwise, as Jefferson said,
	"we might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him as a boy."
	A constitution is not a panacea, but it gives an open framework in which conflict can be peacefully reconciled. By the United Kingdom engaging in the process of creating a constitution, we will not only serve British interests but safeguard the future of Europe on a basis that is acceptable to our citizens.
	I ask the House and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister not to add to the UK's list of lost opportunities, but starting next week in Laeken to seize the opportunity of a written constitution with both hands for the benefit of the people of our country.

Angus Robertson: I am pleased to take part in the debate of behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. I commend the brevity and consideration of Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, to try to ensure that as many Members as possible are able to contribute to the debate. I, too, shall try to be brief.
	I thank the Minister for remaining in his place throughout the debate to listen to us all. I am sure that all Members on both sides of the House are grateful to him for that.
	I agree with the Minister on some of his key points. His argument in favour of pooling sovereignty both in terms of the European Union and the United Nations was compelling. Perhaps he did not intend that it should sound like a compelling argument for Scotland's direct representation in those bodies. I endorse the views that he propounded regarding security and defence policy, especially in fulfilling the Petersberg principles, and in terms of the eastward enlargement of Europe and the treaty of Nice, which is why both the SNP and Plaid Cymru supported the Government and the passing of legislation earlier in the Session in that regard.
	The recent Liege conference was attended by 51 devolved Governments throughout Europe, including those of Scotland and Wales. I commend its findings to Members on both sides of the House. Part of the resolution reads:
	"In the scope of the debate on the Future of Europe, the Presidents of the Regions with legislative power ask to consider the lack of regional participation to the EU decision-making process as a theme to be addressed by the Declaration of Brussels/Laeken as well as by the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference."
	I endorse that view.
	I shall restrict my comments to matters of accountability and scrutiny, especially with regard to the reality that we live within a state with four nations and a devolved system of government in three of them. Members will be aware that there are many areas, especially in Scotland, where legislation is passed that involves justice, the environment, transport, agriculture and fisheries matters, which are also decided at an important level at the EU. Indeed 14 of the 22 areas that the Council of Ministers meet to consider are devolved matters. For that reason I want to highlight some concerns in the hope that even within current UK structures, these areas can be improved.
	My concerns include establishing key facts to help in arriving at good governance and transparency, the ability to scrutinise Ministers and EU measures and the ability to hold Governments to account. In terms of key facts with regard to decision making, I go back to my previous occupation as a journalist. The first questions that one is always supposed to ask are the hows, the whens, the wheres and the whos. Against the background of both the Council of Ministers and working group representation, unfortunately we have very few answers.
	I have tabled a number of questions, as have colleagues from other parties. The answers tend to be along the lines of one given by the Minister, in which he said that the UK Government are working in partnership with the Scottish Executive. Unfortunately, we do not get specific details about how, when and where; we sometimes get details about who is involved, but that is not enough to hold Governments—the UK Government, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Administration or the Northern Irish Administration—to account.
	The Conservative Government gave Scottish Office Ministers the right to attend meetings of the Council of Ministers; the present UK Government are continuing that policy. More than half of the debates held by the Council of Ministers are directly related to devolved matters, but at the moment only 12 per cent. of meetings are attended by Ministers from the Scottish Executive, so I am concerned that there is a gap. The Minister and his Government have had a regular opportunity, in responding to written and oral questions from me, to explain exactly how the system works; that could shed light on the matter and I might not have any more concerns, although I doubt it. For the sake of transparency and good governance, I invite the Minister to shine more light on the way in which the system works.
	By contrast, having worked both in Austria and Germany, I know their systems well; for example, the concept of Bundestreue relates to the ability of the lander to influence and bind central Government, who effectively represent their views. The Austrian system of governance involves the provinces through the Verbindungstelle, an office in which various policy positions are brought together and developed. We have had no idea from the Government how that would operate in practice in the United Kingdom. However, a joint ministerial committee, meeting once or twice a year to co-ordinate policy before meetings of the Council of Ministers is not, as I am sure even the Minister would concede, the most effective means of co-ordination.
	I know that officials talk to each other, but we do not know how the structure works or how often Ministers meet and discuss issues. That concern has been expressed not just by the SNP, but recently by Jim Walker, the president of the National Farmers Union in Scotland, when giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament's Rural Development Committee; he was anxious about the way in which Scottish agriculture policy was being pursued in Europe.
	I am concerned about the scrutiny of Ministers. I do not know whether Members know that there have been at least three instances in which a Minister from the Scottish Executive has represented the UK at a European level without any other UK Minister being part of the delegation. If one wants to scrutinise such Ministers, are they answerable to the UK Parliament? Nicol Stephen, the Deputy Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, has not, so far as I am aware, given any pre or post-Council evidence to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a newly selected member. Conversely, no UK Minister who has attended Council of Ministers meetings to discuss devolved Scottish matters has ever given evidence to the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament either before or after such meetings.
	That is not good or transparent governance. I have a modicum of experience, having advised members of the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament for the first two years after devolution. The problems of the European Scrutiny Committee are mirrored and amplified in those of its Scottish counterpart. That has a lot to do with the way in which UK Departments and the UK Government disseminate European regulations and directives through the system so that, in Scotland, one cannot achieve effective influence.
	Finally, bearing in mind what I have said about the inability to scrutinise Ministers, the inability effectively to scrutinise European Union proposals and the lack of key basic facts to do so, how can we hold Governments to account, whether in the UK, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland? That is simply not possible.
	I give a great example. In today's European Scrutiny Committee meeting, we were discussing European arrest warrants and the lack of information that we need. If such information is not available to us a number of days before a key meeting, what is the position of the Scottish Minister for Justice? He probably has as little information as we have had. That is not an effective way to deal with a serious matter. Similarly, the Commission's proposals on fish catches for 2002 came out only two days ago. How can the Scottish Executive even be informed? The Commission cannot work effectively, it is not accountable and there is a lack of scrutiny.
	The contributions from the hon. Members for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) and for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on the subject of a constitution were extremely well reasoned, balanced and irrefutable. Regardless of anybody's position on further integration or in favour of more disengagement from Europe, the argument for a constitution is intellectually unassailable. The Scottish National party fully endorses it.
	The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), who is no longer in his place, touched on the issue of the euro. My party is in favour of a single European currency, pending a referendum. As the official Opposition in Scotland, our support is unlikely to be overlooked anywhere as being useful in progressing that argument. A single currency would be to everyone's benefit in Europe, Scotland, the rest of the UK and elsewhere.
	In summary, none of the improvements that I suggest in the genuine hope of better governance, scrutiny and accountability in the UK compares in importance with direct representation for Scotland at a European level. At a time of enlargement, the countries of central and eastern Europe are knocking at the door. They want the same rights that other small and medium-sized member states enjoy. I would like Scotland to have that as well. There is no substitute for being at the top table, but any progress would be gratefully received.

Mark Hendrick: Because of the short time available, I have deleted from my speech many of the topics on which I intended to speak, such as Afghanistan, enlargement, European defence, and euro notes and coins. I have decided to speak about the debate on the future of Europe, which is on the agenda for the Laeken Council. As many hon. Members know, it has been agreed that a convention will be set up to consider the future of Europe. Its conclusions will be fed into the next intergovernmental conference, which will take place in 2004.
	The Nice summit set out several questions which the debate on the future of Europe should address. One concerns the delimitation of powers between the EU and member states. There should be a clear definition of the powers of the member states and of the EU, because an enlarged EU of 27 member states would otherwise grind to a halt.
	I foresee a European Union in which first pillar issues are handled as they are at present, with a fairly integrationist agenda. Issues such as the single market, the environment, consumer policy and energy policy would be dealt with through assent, co-decision, co-operation and consultation. The European Parliament and Commission will still have an extremely important role in developing legislation with the Council of Ministers.
	Second and third pillar issues should remain mainly the preserve of member states through subsidiarity, but there should be mechanisms to allow for co-operation of an advanced type between member states. The details of possible options for such co-operation will no doubt emerge from the convention process.
	The status of the charter of fundamental human rights will be discussed at the Laeken Council. The relationship of the charter to member state law will clearly need to be addressed by member states, as well as the question of how or whether it should be incorporated. The issue of possible overlaps with existing human rights legislation in member states also needs to be addressed.
	On the simplification of the treaties—another issue that was raised at Nice—we all know that they are complex documents and that they constantly need to be cross- referenced for sense to be made of them. Any attempt to make them more concise and understandable is clearly desirable. Whether it can be done in 300 words, I do not know.

Denis MacShane: Yes, it can.

Mark Hendrick: We will see, but the simplification process runs the risk of loss of content. Enlargement brings its own problems in that regard. Hon. Members may be interested to know that it has just taken Romania a year to translate the existing treaties.
	I turn now to the role of national Parliaments. The phrase "bringing Europe closer to the people" is a hackneyed one that is used by politicians to get across the idea of the need to make the European Union and its institutions more relevant to the public. It is suggested that the involvement of national parliamentarians in the process would somehow achieve that and add to the legitimacy of the European Union. I believe that the creation of an additional chamber of national parliamentarians from EU states would find little favour with other member states and would, in many ways, make the role of the European Parliament more confusing.
	However, it is important that the forthcoming convention deals with increasing the involvement of national parliamentarians in the making of legislation by other means. For example, it could deal with methods of enhancing the scrutiny of EU legislation by national Parliaments and ways of making the scrutiny process more open and transparent. Another possibility is the idea of setting up a delegation of national parliamentarians to meet regularly with the Council of Ministers to discuss legislative matters. The issue of more openness in European Council decision making is also a matter for discussion. I am reliably informed that this is the only legislature outside Pyongyang that legislates in secret. Again, I am sure that the convention will propose options on those matters. I look forward to seeing what options are available when it eventually meets.

William Cash: Some comments have been made about the extent to which I would be expected to speak on European matters in my current role. My portfolio as shadow Attorney-General certainly includes a responsibility to examine questions relating not only to international treaties but to constitutional arrangements in the United Kingdom and between the UK and Europe—the matter about which I propose to speak now.
	I want first to recall the comments made by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who said that the arguments for a constitution were unassailable and cited, for example, the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), as well as those of other hon. Members. I find that an astonishing idea. The one thing that we can say for certain about the Government relates to a matter that I have raised with the Prime Minister many times, not only at Question Time but after statements and on other occasions. I have asked him many times whether we can have a White Paper—indeed, this issue has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring)—on the constitutional and political implications of where we are going. Here we are, embarking on a journey towards Laeken and the future of Europe debate. We know that we are being taken into the arena of European constitutional arrangements. Indeed, that has been happening for a long time. We know that there are people who would like such arrangements, because they would enable them to lock everybody in.
	A constitution creates an entrenched situation. There is no room for the sort of reform to which the Prime Minister referred in a recent speech. He spoke about repatriating powers to the nation state. The ideas of those of us who have argued for repatriation and renegotiation are therefore being endorsed by those who have an uncontrollable vision of Europe that involves a constitutional arrangement. A huge contradiction is inherent in that view, and it makes me fear for the future of Europe. It means that there is no basis on which to apply subsidiarity to matters covered by the levers of European government and thus enable us to guarantee maintaining control over, for example, our defence arrangements or justice and home affairs.
	The European arrest warrant and proposals for an extradition Bill were mentioned today. They will be considered next year. However, the constitutional arrangements that will provide for those measures apply to regulations and the sort of provisions that are included in section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. At the moment when the Minister and others are considering the need for more information and a wider and clearer debate, we are being led into an arena of obfuscation and denied the necessary information that would be provided in a proper debate in prime time on primary legislation. Yet we are considering the important subject of the abolition of extradition in Europe.
	That matter involves not only extradition, but bail and trials in absentia. It also raises the question of who is a judicial authority: is it the state prosecution service by another name in other countries? We have been considering monumental issues in the Select Committee on European Scrutiny. Some questions remain unresolved. Whatever happens on 7 December, there is a scrutiny reserve for good reasons. They are inherent in the democratic accountability to Parliament of its scrutiny Committees, which report to the House and ensure that decisions are not made without the provision of proper information. That cannot happen without debate.
	European Standing Committee B dissolved in chaos the day before yesterday. There is no time for a full debate, the scrutiny reserve continues to apply and the decision on the European arrest warrant requires unanimity, yet it will apparently be made on 7 December. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to listen because I should be grateful if he could tell us what exactly will happen.
	The current proposal is that the decision will be made on 7 December, but, as I said, the scrutiny reserve applies and no debate has taken place. Will the Government defer the decision? The Minister appears to be engrossed in conversations this evening. Will he be good enough to tell us whether the Government will make the decision on Friday on a third pillar question that requires unanimity, or will they defer it because scrutiny has not been completed?
	There is no point talking about constitutional arrangements when democratic accountability is being infringed in the House. That is a serious matter and I am sure that the Minister, who is a responsible person, understands that. There will be a massive row if the decision is not made according to the proper procedures and with justification.
	In the context of the desire to move towards a new constitutional arrangement, I want to refer to the Government's White Paper. I do not know whether hon. Members realise that the preliminary proposals for the White Paper state that the objective towards which the Laeken conference is to be directed is a "laboratory for world governance". That is there in black and white. What on earth is it supposed to mean? There are serious constitutional questions involved here. These are serious issues relating not just to the appearances of subsidiarity, which simply endorse the hierarchy and lock it into a new, enhanced constitution for Europe, but to the central question of democracy.
	Labour Members know perfectly well that I have argued over and over again for more democracy and accountability in the European Union. I have not been against the single market. I have been in favour of a reformed arrangement to provide proper governmental and democratic arrangements that ensure that people are properly heard, and that they have an opportunity to have their say when policies are made. I have argued consistently for referendums, for that reason. That is why I have played a part in—as some have kindly said to me—helping the Irish in their referendum. I was very glad to have been able to do that, as I was in Denmark and France before that.
	If the Whip system in this Parliament operates, as it has, to prevent the opportunity for proper consideration of some of these matters, it is essential that some decisions should be taken by referendum. I was, therefore, delighted when that opportunity arose and the decisions were transferred down to the people at the grass roots. In the case of the Irish, they had to hold a referendum under their constitutional arrangements. When they did, every citizen was sent a clear, concise, accurate document—like a White Paper, perhaps—to their doorstep, stating what the Nice treaty was all about, and they rejected it. It is a function of a properly democratically run country that people are given proper information.
	We have made requests over and over again for a White Paper, and for other information. There has been a fundamental failure on the part of the Government to respond. I am extremely surprised and disappointed that the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, should be party to these shabby arrangements, including the arrangements in clause 109 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. He and other Ministers in the Foreign Office must be involved in those provisions to a degree. Those arrangements will be fundamentally unconstitutional and undemocratic.
	An interesting paper by a number of political scientists and constitutional experts, entitled "IGC 2000: The Constitutional Agenda", is described as rethinking the European Union. In it, J. H. H. Weiler—a great political and constitutional expert—states on the question of whether there should be a European constitution:
	"a formal process of adopting a constitution is not only pragmatically not feasible but might even be conceptually undesirable . . . Europe may have a constitutional legal order but the problem is that it does not have traditional constitutional legitimation"
	because—I am now paraphrasing—in practice, there is not the necessary degree of common consent and democratic grass-roots agreement over what is going on, as exemplified by the results of the recent referendums.
	This issue presents Europe with a monumental problem, which is that Europe is sliding down a slippery slope on the pretext of some high-flown idea that it can have a constitution, when in fact it lacks legitimacy at the grass roots. Nothing is more dangerous, either for a nation state or for any putative superstate or federation, than to fall between the two stools of the determination to achieve a greater degree of rule making at a higher level and the lack of consent from the people concerned.
	Fundamentally, consent is about freedom. As Vernon Bogdanor said the other day in evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee—the record of which I strongly recommend that Members read—if the European Union does not adopt the principles of democracy and accountability represented by the British system, there will be no real hope for the future of Europe.

Michael Trend: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) for kindly inviting me to wind up the debate. He is a well-known titan of the Dispatch Box, but I am grateful for the opportunity, and I shall enjoy it. I have a sense of deja vu, as I used to wind up debates on Europe a few years ago when I was my party's spokesman on the subject. We have heard a number of thoughtful speeches this evening; I sympathise with those who were not called, but, as we all understand, there were many reasons for that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) touched on some important legal and constitutional matters. The quotation that he read out about Europe's lacking the traditional constitutional legitimacy goes to the heart of the issue. As other Members have pointed out, there is no understanding between the ruled and the rulers in terms of the European Union. That is the fundamental problem. It is not, as some Members have suggested, simply a question of economic tests—say, for joining the euro. The all-important political and constitutional questions that need to be settled with the people of this country must come first; and if the people of Europe have no sense of belonging to the European institutions, those institutions cannot work.
	I was impressed by what my hon. Friend said about the importance of the scrutiny process. I wish more could be done in that respect. He was also right to raise the important question of arrest warrants, which was also raised in the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells referred to the droit de suite, as did the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth). I lost track of it some months ago, and was surprised to discover a few weeks ago that it had been slipped through with no chance of further discussion in the House. That is shameful. The droit de suite will have an impact on many people and organisations, including a firm in my constituency. As my right hon. Friend said, it will have serious implications for people running small businesses. It will have a devastating effect throughout the country, and I wish the Government could have found a way of giving us an extra chance to debate it.
	When I listened to the right hon. Member for Newport, East, the years seemed to roll back: I agreed with nearly everything he said. I must warn him, however, that his new colleagues listened stony-faced, as I believe the expression is.
	In his interesting speech, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk referred to Belarus, in which I have a personal and particular interest. I now run my party's international office, and, as the Minister probably knows, I am a governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. As I think he also knows, I have a special interest in Belarus, and was very disappointed by the recent presidential election there. It was neither free nor fair, and I look to the Government to state that clearly on behalf of our country. Our thoughts must be with the brave democrats who continue the struggle against tyranny and Lukashenko's Belarus. I think it can be said that, following the fall of Milosevic, he is far the most tyrannical leader in Europe.
	Will the Minister say what steps have been taken to reconsider the disastrous closure of the British Council in Minsk? I think that that decision needs to be revisited as soon as possible.
	Three years ago, when I last spoke from the Dispatch Box, on enlargement, I was fairly pessimistic about progress. I am less so now because I think that the will to get on with enlargement is shared more widely. I also note that many of the applicant countries have made huge efforts to fulfil the requirements that have been placed on them. I am particularly delighted—I think that this is the point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) was making—that Lithuania and Latvia have moved on so well in the process and are catching up Estonia.
	I also agree that a big bang of 10 countries entering at the same time is highly desirable. However, I still think that there are mountains to climb before enlargement becomes a reality. The main problems associated with agriculture and the structural funds remain. With the presidential election in France, where agriculture has suddenly gained a new intensity as a political issue, and with Spain—the largest winner of regional funds—holding the presidency for the next six months, this will not be an easy time for the enlargement process. There are already noises coming out of Madrid casting doubt on the target date for enlargement. One does not have to be a political genius to know what that is all about.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk also mentioned Gibraltar. Many distinguished Labour Members have often debated Gibraltar, and I am sorry that they are not here today; we need to return to that subject. The citizens of Gibraltar have of course been full citizens of the EU for some time, but they have been treated shamefully in the past. I am very pleased that they will now be able to vote in European elections.
	I believe, however, that the British Government are playing cruel games with the wishes and affections of the people of Gibraltar. I cannot understand the message that the British Government are trying to send out to Gibraltar. Of course Spain has the presidency next and it would be good if in the next six months we could resolve all our outstanding differences with Spain, but, on Gibraltar, the Government have so far only made a bad situation worse. They have embarked on a process that I think can only end in tears.
	The Government have already hugely annoyed the people of Gibraltar by sending out signals that the British guarantee of self-determination has a rubbery rather than a steely quality to it. I think that that feeling will only grow worse in the coming weeks and ensure that the people of Gibraltar say no to whatever question is asked of them.
	Therefore, one outcome for the British Government will be to destabilise the Gibraltarians to no practical effect. The other outcome will be to irritate the Government of Spain by appearing to sympathise with their position but then being unable to deliver. As so often, our Government will end up by failing on both fronts. The empty chair is there at the table, but it is for someone who wants to talk about sovereignty. The people of Gibraltar of all parties, all Members of Parliament and all former Speakers have made it absolutely clear—and they believe that the British Government should support them in this—that there is nothing to discuss on sovereignty.

Chris Bryant: That is not true.

Michael Trend: We have different opinions on what sovereignty and other such difficult conceptual words mean. If the Government of Gibraltar are being invited to discuss fundamental principles of sovereignty there is no doubt that they do not wish to do so. There are ways in which that could be discussed, and the First Minister of Gibraltar has made that clear. However, if the empty chair is for someone who, as the British Government have made clear, is meant to discuss the fundamental principles, clearly no one from Gibraltar can occupy that chair.
	I am very encouraged by the European Union's approach to Cyprus, and I very much hope that minds can be concentrated on finding a just solution to the island's problems as part of the enlargement process. Conservative Members remain committed to Turkey and wish to encourage it in the necessary reforms that will bring it, too, into full membership of the European family. However, Turkey has to understand that it cannot stand in the way and that Cyprus's place in the enlargement process is not negotiable.
	Many hon. Members have rightly discussed the world situation and how it will affect the development of Europe. What we have seen in the past few months is a demonstration of how power is really exercised in today's world. After all the grandiose rhetoric about common defence and military structures that we have had to listen to over the years, the EU is not and never shall be the right forum to take action of the sort that the current world situation so evidently requires. Romano Prodi's performance in recent months has shown how tetchy and difficult the Eurocrats can be on that subject. We watched the press conference with Guy Verhofstadt, the Belgian Prime Minister, when Mr. Prodi sulked his way out of the room and told the BBC that the EU needed power in military and foreign affairs because it was powerless in the big united global war. Splendid, let us keep it that way for as long as possible.
	The Government know that we wholeheartedly support them in their recent actions, but I also hope that they are learning the lesson that their earlier rhetorical gestures on common policy were mistaken. Once again, we have clear evidence of the close and practical relationship that exists between us and the United States. Moreover we have had an important demonstration of how important flexibility is in defence, and vain rhetoric on the EU's future in that respect has been undermined by the reality of the present situation.
	The circus is moving on to Laeken and I wish the Minister a jolly time of it. I do not see anything in the Laeken approach that will cure a problem that has been identified by many hon. Members tonight. Nothing that will happen at Laeken will bring the EU's affairs one inch closer to people throughout the Union, especially after the experiences of Denmark and Ireland, as my right hon. and hon. Friends mentioned. Trying to make some sense of Europe for the people is, as we have long been telling the Government, the real challenge for the EU.
	The biggest noise around at the moment, as many Labour Members have confirmed, is the proposed convention. We are told that one way in which the EU can grow closer to the citizens of Europe is through the new convention, but that is nonsense. Instead, the convention will be a chance for Europe's budding Thomas Jeffersons to sharpen their pencils and head for the equivalent of Philadelphia. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who is unfortunately no longer in his place, is becoming an expert on making new constitutions and I am sure that he would love to take on that task. I disagreed with much of what he said, although I am always interested in how he puts things. We can agree on the analysis of problems without necessarily agreeing on the prescription of the cure.
	I have not done this debate for a while, but my sense of deja vu tells me that things have moved on but much remains the same. In particular, as hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have pointed out, the EU still uses the same tedious jargon, weasel language, skewed language and hectoring tone that have for so long marred its progress. My suspicions also go into overdrive when I am sure that we have been given only half the picture. Romano Prodi recently told the College of Europe that some of his major reforms would consist of technical provisions only. I am sure that that will raise the hackles of my right hon. and hon. Friends. When the Minister said earlier that sovereignty shared is sovereignty regained, I felt a judder inside me and questioned whether that made any sense whatever.
	EU leaders, however much they protest the opposite, are responsible for the unnecessary double-speak, muddle and confusion that surrounds their utterances. They are responsible, too, for the arrogant reputation that is synonymous with the EU. When the Irish told Brussels to hold its horses, Prodi went to see them and told them that their views did not matter. Clever stuff. The great paradox of Europe remains the same as it has been for the past 10 years or so. It is the people at the top who are trying to drive the EU too far and too fast who do the damage. It is their closed doors and their private language that alienate ordinary people. It is their indifference to the lack of democratic accountability based on units of government that people understand that prevents sensible progress.

Peter Hain: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to the debate for the Government.
	I begin by welcoming back to the Dispatch Box the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend). I responded to him in his Adjournment debate on Belarus, and I pay tribute to his work on that country. I welcome too his support for enlargement, and wonder why he voted against the Nice treaty when the relevant Bill went through the House earlier this year. Opposition to the treaty would block enlargement and prevent all the countries that he mentioned from joining the EU. There is therefore a degree of hypocrisy and contradiction in that approach.
	Whatever the current feelings in Gibraltar, I invite the hon. Gentleman to look ahead at what I think is a great prize for the people there, and for Britain and Spain—an agreement that will give the people of Gibraltar maximum self-government, and all the advantages of being a full part of the European Union. Such an agreement will allow them access to the wider market in Spain, from which they are largely barred at present.
	I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Conservative Government under Baroness Thatcher who began the Brussels process discussions, which included the issue of sovereignty. He will find that Conservative predecessors of mine, including Lord Tristan Garel-Jones, have consistently been part of that process, and that sovereignty has been on the agenda.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned, in another context, sovereignty in the European Union, and noted my remarks about sovereignty shared being sovereignty regained. I draw his attention to the words of Michael Heseltine in an interview, when he said:
	"a degree of shared sovereignty"
	was the way that "you enhance sovereignty." That is the exact point that the Government are making, and the hon. Gentleman seems oblivious to it.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—my hon. Friend—appeared again on the Back Benches and made an eloquent speech. That is clear proof that there is life after death on the Tory Front Bench—but only when people are temporarily reincarnated on the Tory Back Benches. He expressed delight at his participation in the Irish referendum, and gloried in the no vote that was recorded. Our friends in Cyprus, Malta, Poland, Hungary and in all the countries of eastern, central and southern Europe want to join the EU, but his delight obviously stems from the fact that a no vote prevents them from doing so. The consequence of the failure of any of the 15 EU member states to ratify the Nice treaty, as happened in Ireland, is that those countries are denied the opportunity to enter the EU on target, as they wish to do.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) made an interesting speech about the euro and mentioned inward investment. I am advised that France has taken over from Britain the leadership in inward investment in manufacturing. Many inward investors—the Japanese in particular—now say that they prefer France over their traditional choices of Wales and other parts of Britain because France is in the euro. My right hon. Friend might therefore want to bear that in mind.
	I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) back to European debates. In his eloquent speech, he made the important point that enlargement should go ahead quickly and that the applicants need a firm date to work with. I completely agree with him. Applicant countries should have a firm date and Britain, as champion of enlargement, is committed to setting that date as early as possible in 2004. I also agree that as large a number of countries as possible should come into the EU, as long as they complete all the chapter negotiations required for accession.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) and the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) made some interesting points about the European convention. I shall take note of them and look into them further. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) made a very interesting speech about a written constitution for Europe. I look forward to his Bill as a guide to further progress.
	The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) spoke about the Scottish Parliament's relation to the European Union via the United Kingdom Government. However, he conceded that Scottish Executive Ministers represent, and have represented, the UK on a number of occasions. That will continue to be the case, where appropriate, and I welcome it.
	The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) spent some time dwelling on the dangerous consequences, as he saw them, for our relationship with the United States as a result of our approach to Europe and our support for European defence. I have not seen much evidence in recent weeks that the relationship between the United States and Britain or between our Prime Minister and President Bush is on the rocks; on the contrary. However, the Opposition never let the facts get in the way of their argument.
	Let me try instead to reassure Conservative Members by quoting a senior British statesman, speaking in London on 13 November. He said:
	"crucial to the modern Anglo-American relationship is Britain's role as a European power—not just a country anchored offshore the Continent, but a full partner in the European Union. Those who argue that Britain should weaken its links inside the EU in order to cosy up more intimately with the United States are ignoring the facts of power. Such a shift would actually reduce our importance in the eyes of American decision makers."
	That is absolutely right. I hope that Conservative Members who disagree will take it up not with me but with the person who said it—their very own former Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, now Lord Hurd.
	The Opposition have also made a predictable and synthetic fuss about European defence. In reply, I quote Lord Hurd from the same speech, in which he said:
	"we have to press ahead with the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). The partnership between Europe and the United States will only be valid if the effort made by each partner, particularly in military strength, is recognised as substantial by the other."
	That is the policy of the Government, but I doubt whether anything that I or Lord Hurd could say would persuade the headbangers on the Conservative Benches.
	For the authoritative voice of today's Tory party, I turn to my e-mail in-box. As part of my efforts to explain Europe better, I have instituted an online debate about Britain and Europe on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website. It is a very popular website, and we recently received the following contribution from a Conservative Member of the European Parliament, one Roger Helmer. I am glad that he is keeping out of trouble by sending me e-mails. Mr. Helmer wrote:
	"EU membership is the greatest threat to Britain's prosperity, democracy and security."
	This is from a Conservative Member of the European Parliament. He goes on:
	"The great task of our generation is European deconstruction."
	He explains:
	"The Treaty of Nice threatens to turn Britain into a mere off-shore province in the new European empire."
	He concludes:
	"We must oppose Nice, oppose the Euro, oppose the new IGC".
	So he goes on, rather like the man muttering to himself whom we try not to sit next to on the bus. We wondered whether it was a crank e-mail, as we get quite a lot of those, and not only from my friend the hon. Member for Stone. Sadly, it appears to be genuine—cranky, but genuine.
	So which party is the Conservative party? Is it the party of statesmanlike Lord Hurd or the party of headbangers, like Roger Helmer, MEP? Or is it the party of the people who write letters in green ink, copied to the Queen and the Pope, about the great global conspiracy that is today's Europe? The answer was given in The Guardian this morning by Nick Kent, campaign manager for the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). He said:
	"The party I joined was full of nice old people; today, it is full of nasty old people."
	He also said:
	"In truth, no group of 300,000 adults, other than the membership of the Conservative party, would have chosen Iain Duncan Smith over Ken Clarke."
	I cannot but agree.
	I am practical about Europe. I want to deliver real things for real people: full employment, equal rights, and an end to injustice and poverty. Up and down Britain, people know that Europe is good for their jobs, their security and their future. They may not care for Eurospeak; nor do I. They are not heady about Europe; nor am I. Like the Foreign Secretary and the entire Government, they are practical Europeans.
	Practical Europeans want a Europe that works for Britain, which means a Britain that works with Europe and has more self-confidence about its engagement in Europe. Yes, some things that some Europeans say are daft. Some want to take Europe in the wrong direction, but most others want—
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

NORTH DURHAM HEALTH CARE NHS TRUST

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Angela Smith.]

Kevan Jones: I am pleased to have an opportunity to raise my concerns about the procedure followed by the NHS Appointments Commission in appointing the chair of the North Durham Health Care NHS trust.
	I do not intend in this debate to raise concerns about the operation of the hospital, nor to criticise personally the new chair of the trust, Ms Angela Ballatti. I intend to concentrate on the clear faults in the appointment procedure and on the disgraceful way in which the former chair, Mr. Kevin Earley, has been treated.
	Mr. Earley was appointed chair of the trust in April 1998. He and his new board faced a number of challenges, the most demanding of which was the building of a new private finance initiative hospital in Durham—one of the first in the country.
	Mr. Earley's term of office came up for review this year. In July, he was asked to attend a meeting for what was described as an "informal chat" with Mr. Peter Garland, the regional director of the northern and Yorkshire health region and Dr. John Marshall, regional appointments commissioner for the NHS commission.
	It was made clear to him that his reappointment as chair would not be automatic and that they wanted to "road test" the procedure for the appointment of the trust's chair. A number of points were raised with Mr. Earley: first, concern over the waiting list at the hospital since April 2001; secondly, the quality of the executive management team at the trust; and, finally, concern that Mr. Earley was acting as an executive chair.
	In response to those concerns, Mr. Earley explained robustly that the waiting list delays were mainly the result of down time when the new hospital came on stream in April. Until then the trust had met all its targets and the national patient action team was happy with the trust's strategy.
	With regard to the comments about the executive team, Kevin Earley pointed out, rightly, that the appointments had been made with the full involvement of the regional health authority. For example, the medical director had been appointed on a recommendation from Ken Jarrold of Durham health authority, whose chair at the time was actually Dr. John Marshall.
	On the concern that he acted as executive chair, Kevin Earley reminded Dr. Marshall that on his appointment he had been told by him that, in coming years, he would have to "have his foot on the pedal because the trust had a lot to deliver".
	On 31 July 2001, Mr. Earley received a letter from Sir William Wells, chair of the NHS Appointments Commission, telling him that he would not be automatically reappointed, and stating that the post would be advertised, but
	"you will of course be entitled to apply".
	The NHS Appointments Commission procedure, under the heading, "Arrangements for local chair appointments", states:
	"Regional Commissioners will review appraisal reports and discuss possible reappointments with regional directors. Except where the appraised performance of the incumbent chair is good, vacancies will be advertised".
	Well, I have Mr. Earley's last appraisal here, and it states:
	"Overall health of organisation—good
	Financial management—good
	External profile of organisation—good
	Relationship with Chief Executive—good
	Effectiveness of Board—good
	Management of relationships with media—good."
	I could go on.
	During Mr. Earley's three years as chairman of the North Durham trust, he was appraised on three separate occasions. At no time were any concerns about his performance raised with him by the then regional chairman, Mrs. Manzoor, who conducted personal interviews after each appraisal. If no concerns were raised at those appraisals, why did the commission think that he should not be reappointed?
	To shed some light on that, I have to return to Sir William's letter, in which he states that the views of the regional director, Mr. Garland, would be considered, as well as the appraisals. He goes on to state:
	"In your case the Commission accepted that the difficult relationship with your former Chief Executive led to concerns about the strength of your own leadership skills and relationships within the Trust".
	To question that as a reason for not reappointing Mr. Earley, I refer again to his appraisal of June 2000. Under the heading "Relationships with the Chief Executive", it states:
	"have improved many if not most issues viewed from similar perspective—assessment—good".
	No concerns have ever been raised with Mr. Earley about his relationship with the former chief executive by the regional chair, who, as I have said, carried out personal interviews after each appraisal. If that is not good enough evidence to show that he should be reappointed, I shall refer to The Journal—a Newcastle paper—in which, on 16 November 2001, the former chief executive, Mr. Worth, is quoted as saying that
	"he and Mr. Earley worked well together for three and a half years and believed the two achieved a lot in North Durham".
	The reason for the non-reappointment does not stand up to scrutiny. Again, if there were serious questions about Mr. Earley's leadership, why did they not show up in the annual appraisals? Why were those concerns not raised by Dr. John Marshall, the then chairman of the health authority?
	Kevin Earley reapplied for the position of chairman when it was advertised this September. In fact, he was shortlisted and interviewed for the post. Again, if the commission had grave concerns about his performance and leadership abilities, as was stated in Sir William's letter, why on earth was he shortlisted and interviewed?
	I understand that, following the interviews, the regional NHS appointments commission made a recommendation to the national commission, but it was rejected. It is not known whether a second preference was also nominated, according to the commission's procedures, but no appointment was made as a result of the process. That effectively left the trust with no replacement for Mr. Earley.
	The commission's clear conclusion was that, despite an open advertisement, no one from my constituency, from that of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), or from that of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) could be found to fill that post. I find that hard to believe or accept.
	Given that no appointment was made, I understand that the regional commissioner, Dr. John Marshall, wrote to certain existing non-executive members of health trusts inviting them to apply for the post. I have studied the NHS Appointments Commission's procedures on the NHS executive website and cannot find where the procedure used in this case is laid down. I hope that the Minister will enlighten me in her reply.
	The actions by Dr. John Marshall raise serious questions. Who drew up the list of who was to be invited for interview? Where do Dr. Marshall's actions appear in the procedures laid down and what criteria were used to draw up the list? We know that some non-executives on the North Durham trust were invited to apply, because at least one wrote to Dr. Marshall refusing to be considered and strongly criticising the removal of Mr. Earley as chair. We also know that Mrs. Angela Ballatti was asked to apply. She qualified—rightly in my opinion—because she was the chair of the local priority services trust. However, we also know that the chair of the priority services trust in Sunderland, who is a Durham city resident, was not invited to apply.
	The list of those approached and the reasons for it need to be made public. More importantly, we need to know why some people were not asked to apply for the post of chair of the North Durham trust. What should have been an open and transparent process has become clouded in secrecy, with the commission hiding behind its so-called "cloak of independence".
	The new NHS Appointments Commission was set up to end the accusations of cronyism and, to quote from its website, it was created to
	"ensure that the public, the NHS and Ministers have confidence in the openness, transparency and fairness of the procedures which are used".
	We are as far from that position as we could possibly be.
	We must ask questions about not only the procedure used, but the people finally appointed. Mrs. Angela Ballatti is a senior tutor in the business school at Durham university and Dr. John Marshall was director of the business school. This, along with the appointment of Sandy Anderson—who worked with Dr. Marshall for 30 years at ICI in Teesside—to the chair of the South Durham Health Care NHS trust makes the perception of cronyism hard to refute.
	Mr. Earley was removed without adequate explanation and that has left a stain against his character despite the much good work that he did for health care in my constituency and in Durham in general. The only reason given for his removal was that he did not get on with the former chief executive. We may never know the true reason but, since the controversy surrounding this appointment, Dr. Marshall has at least given some pointers as to where we might find an answer.
	In a private meeting with the non-executive members of the North Durham trust after Mrs. Ballatti's appointment, Dr. Marshall said that Mr. Earley's demise had occurred because he had engineered the retirement of the former chief executive, Mr. Worth, so that he could "put his boy in", referring to the new chief executive, Steve Mason. Dr. Marshall could not be further from the truth. Mr. Worth's retirement was agreed with the regional health authority and Dr. Marshall did not object when he was chair of the health authority.
	If Mr. Earley committed a crime, it was that of wanting another Marshall—Mr. Charles Marshall—as the new chief executive of the North Durham trust. That proposal was blocked by the regional director, Peter Garland and, on a point of information, the present chief executive did not apply for the post at that time. Mr. Earley had crossed Mr. Garland, so it could be interpreted that Mr. Earley's removal as chair was Garland's way of hitting back at Mr. Earley's defiance.
	The NHS Appointments Commission was set up to ensure transparency and fairness. This case demonstrates that, in the appointment of the chair of the North Durham trust, it has failed badly. A chair, who even the Secretary of State for Health agreed to me privately was a good one, has been removed without good reason. Mr. Earley's only crime was that of crossing the NHS's northern regional director.
	The NHS appointments commissioner for the region, Dr. John Marshall, clearly has a lot to answer for, but it appears that he is unaccountable. It concerns me that if more decisions and finance are to be devolved to a local level, as was announced last week, there needs to be greater public accountability of those we appoint to run our health service at a local level. Failure to do that will allow local health service civil servants to continue to make mistakes and not to deliver the health care that the Government and the public in North Durham demand. If speaking out and challenging the local civil service results in individuals being removed, we will not get talented and representative people coming forward, and the challenging questions on the health service that the public need to be put will not be asked.
	I ask the Minister to examine the issues that I have raised tonight. I will work with Mrs. Ballatti, the new chair, for the sake of my constituents, but I will continue to ask the challenging questions that need asking.

Hazel Blears: I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on securing the debate. It is clear from the way in which he makes his case that he takes seriously his responsibility to represent the best interests of his constituents in the health service. I recognise and understand his concern that the North Durham Health Care NHS trust should have sound leadership. The performance of any NHS trust depends on the leadership provided by executive and non-executive directors of the board. His constituents rightly expect their local hospital to provide the best service that it can.
	The new hospital, the University hospital of North Durham, which has been built on the north end of the existing Dryburn site in Durham city, is operational following a £96 million private finance initiative scheme. It rationalises acute hospital services and centralises in-patient facilities and specialised out-patient services on a single site. Almost £600,000 of additional funding has been allocated to critical care services and £500,000 has been allocated to provide equipment this year in the new hospital. My hon. Friend's constituents now have access to high-quality care.
	We heard how Mr. Earley's personal and forthright leadership style gained him support from hospital staff and in the local community. I do not wish to say anything that would detract from his significant contribution to the trust or the community at large over the past three and a half years. However, it does not necessarily follow that his record makes him the automatic choice to lead the trust into the challenges of the next four years. The NHS Appointments Commission, in making the appointment of Angela Ballatti as chair from 1 November, has taken an independent view that North Durham Health Care NHS trust can move forward to even better performance under her experienced leadership. Before I deal with the detail of Mr. Earley's position, I will say why the NHS Appointments Commission was set up and how it operates.
	In 1999 Dame Rennie Fritchie, in response to complaints from MPs and interest by the media, announced her intention to scrutinise all NHS appointments. Her report in March 2000 made 28 recommendations for improving the process. She concluded that there was a lack of transparency in the way those public appointments had been made and even that political affiliation had been more important than merit when candidates were considered. The Public Administration Committee became involved and its second report recommended that the Government should consider the possibility of an independent appointments commission.
	The Secretary of State for Health took the view that an independent commission was the only way to provide complete reassurance to the public. The commission was set up with a chair, a chief executive and eight regional commissioners. The establishment of the commission means that the appointment of chairs and non-executives to NHS boards is no longer the direct responsibility of Health Ministers. In addition, the NHS Appointments Commission does not consult MPs on the identity of candidates. Instead, it writes to all Members of Parliament whenever a chair post is advertised to give them the opportunity to draw the advert to the attention of anyone who they think is suitable.

Kevan Jones: The process was clearly inefficient in my region, because even though I was elected in June the commission wrote to my predecessor, Giles Radice. I had to point out that I was now the Member of Parliament. Clearly, the commission does not keep on top of who are the Members of Parliament in the northern region.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When I met Sir Williams Wells today, I asked that the procedures connected with Members of Parliament be examined to ensure that they are efficient and effective. On occasion, not only have Members of Parliament not been notified that vacancies have occurred and that they should draw the advertisements to people's attention, but they have not been notified when an appointment has been made. I am anxious to ensure that all Members of Parliament are properly notified of appointments: they are important positions in every community and local Members of Parliament must be kept up to date. I stressed that to Sir William Wells.
	The NHS Appointments Commission was established as a special health authority from 1 April this year to take over responsibility for recruitment and appointment of chairs and non-executives. In taking the step of establishing an independent appointments body, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health had the support of the Public Administration Committee and the Commissioner for Public Appointments, Dame Rennie Fritchie. Sir William Wells is the first chairman of the commission.
	The NHS Appointments Commission itself is subject to regular audit and scrutiny by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, who has a statutory duty to audit all public appointment files within her remit. She does that by sending in teams of auditors who trawl through the files, examine processes and report on their findings. The commission will be audited annually from 2002. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend that the proceedings and processes of the commission will be subject to intense scrutiny.
	In addition, anyone who thinks that the appointments process is flawed may draw their concerns to the attention of Sir William, who has the power to scrutinise all the papers and the process. He can request the board to re-examine the appointment, and would do so if he found evidence of flawed procedure. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, they may then take up the matter directly with Dame Rennie Fritchie, who has the power to see all the papers, audit the procedures and report back. The commission would be bound to consider her recommendations and to take appropriate action. We have built in checks and balances to ensure that the commission's activities are subject to proper audit.
	Transparency is crucial if the public are to feel that proceedings have been properly conducted. One of the first actions of the commission was thoroughly to overhaul the appointments process. After a comprehensive consultation exercise involving all serving non- executives, new guidance was published that has the full support of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I understand that copies of the entire process are available in the Library. The process is open and transparent and ensures that appointments are made—and can be seen to be made—on merit alone.
	There are safeguards in the system. First, all interview panels must include an independent assessor who has the right to report directly to the Commissioner for Public Appointments if the proper procedures are not followed. Secondly, appointments are not made by any individual alone. Chair appointments are made by the full board of the commission in a collective decision. Thirdly, no chair or non-executive has an absolute right to a further term of appointment. If there is any doubt about their performance, their post will be advertised, but they are entitled to apply and be interviewed along with other candidates. That may appear harsh to my hon. Friend, but the NHS Appointments Commission believes that the process is essential to encourage openness and to ensure that the NHS always has the best leaders available to it.

Ashok Kumar: Those who have been rejected must be told why they were turned down. It hardly creates confidence or encourages people to come forward if they are not told.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point—one that I raised with Sir William Wells today. All unsuccessful candidates should be entitled to proper feedback on their interview, on the process, on their perceived deficiencies, and on where they need to be stronger if they are to be appointed. I have been assured that all candidates are entitled to feedback, both orally from the members who sat on the interview panel and, if they wish it, in writing. It is an important part of the procedure that people should understand where their perceived deficiencies are.

Kevan Jones: That is not included in the procedures that have been laid down, and it is new to me. Mr. Earley has not been offered that option.

Hazel Blears: That should be remedied. I undertake to ensure that it is.
	My hon. Friend said that in relation to the process concerning Mr. Earley, a decision was made not to appoint any candidate on the first occasion. There was then a trawl or a head-hunting process. My hon. Friend has rightly said that that process of seeking applications is not in the written process that he has examined. Again, that matter needs to be remedied. Apparently, the process is acceptable to the independent commissioner, and it has been used on a number of previous occasions. My hon. Friend is correct to say that the process should be transparent and should be part of the written procedures. I will ensure that happens.
	In Mr. Earley's case, there was a panel that consisted of the regional commissioner, another chair and an independent person. At the first session, Kevin Earley was interviewed in accordance with the process. Along with three other candidates, he was assessed as not having the particular skills needed by the trust for the challenges of the future. The details of that interview are in confidence between the commission and Mr. Earley. I do not have them, but he should be entitled to that feedback. I will ensure that he gets it.
	Miss Ballatti was appointed by the commission at its board meeting on 12 November. She is already an experienced chair, and she will be supported in her new role by the induction and training procedures. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has said that he intends to work closely with her in the interests of his constituents to ensure that their health services continue to be of the highest possible quality.
	My hon. Friend has expressed concern about the role played by Dr. John Marshall in this procedure. I have been reassured by Sir William Wells on behalf of the commission that Dr. Marshall is a man of the highest integrity who has worked in the north-east for more than 40 years in the chemical industry, the university sector and as chair of a health authority. It therefore follows that he knows many local people. It is an asset to have that local knowledge when trying to search out and find the highest quality people to lead the NHS within the region.

Kevan Jones: I accept my hon. Friend's point. However, if we are looking for new people to come into the NHS and into the appointments system, which is what the commission was set up to do, and if we are limiting such people to those who know Dr. Marshall and others who move in certain social circles, we shall not get new blood, which is what the process was set up to achieve.

Hazel Blears: I do not think for one moment that I said that candidates should be limited to people moving in the same social circle. I said that sometimes it is an asset for people who are grounded in their communities to be able to seek good, high-quality leaders for the service.
	We must be clear that it is an unfortunate fact of life that in any appointment process there will be candidates who are disappointed by the outcome and who will try directly or indirectly to take the matter further. We in the House need to be careful not to become caught up in that process. The independent commission was established to ensure that there is fair play, that appointments are made on merit and that we have transparency.
	If my hon. Friend still has concerns, he should take them up with the chair of the commission, Sir William Wells, who I am sure would be delighted to see him to talk the issues through in depth. I recommend that my hon. Friend, and any other Members who remain concerned, take up these matters. They should ensure that their concerns are placed firmly before the commission. It is important to make sure that we all have faith, trust and confidence in the appointments that are made. It is in the best interests of all our constituents to ensure that we get high-quality people into the health service who are able to perform on behalf of their communities and deliver the best services to which all our constituents are entitled.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.